Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Geriatric Services

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to increase resources for hospital, nursing and ancillary geriatric services for Leicestershire; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the funding of the National Health Service in Leicestershire.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): In real terms the 1986–87 Hospital and Community Health Services revenue allocation to Leicestershire is 34 per cent. higher than the 1978–79 expenditure. There has also been significant real terms growth in funding for the family practitioner services. In Leicestershire, as in the country as a whole, the development of services for the elderly has a high priority and there are plans for a substantial additional investment in these services.

Mr. Janner: I welcome the plans to which the Minister referred. However, will he please be specific as to the provision of geriatric beds, of which we are desperately short, to the extent that a constitutent of mine, about whom I shall write to the Minister, would probably be alive today had there been a bed for him? Will he undertake to conduct an inquiry into that case when I write to him, and will he give us details so that the people of Leicestershire may have some hope of real improvement in geriatric care?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman at least acknowledged the substantial increase in real resources which has been directed to Leicestershire during the lifetime of this Government. In 1985–86 there has been a temporary reduction in geriatric beds due to repair and upgrading work, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. However, 37 beds at Leicestershire General will be back in use soon, and a massive injection of resources is planned for the period up to 1993–94—a 42 per cent. increase in revenue and about £33 million worth of capital development—for services specifically for the elderly. Total manpower, including trained nurses and professions allied to medicine, is increasing and they will all make their contribution to improve services for the elderly in the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the RAWP formula helped to raise Leicestershire from a miserable 75 per cent. of the national average in 1974 to

93 per cent. last year? Will he give an assurance that if the RAWP formula is discontinued in order to help London he will find some other clear method to help Leicestershire get to the national average by 1993?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Fr-tend is right to draw attention to the way in which the RAWP formula has led to a significant improvement in the relative position of Leicestershire and the Trent region. The Trent region has received a real increase of 27 per cent. in its hospital and community health services revenue, whereas the average for England has been 20 per cent. and, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, in the Thames region it has been only 13 per cent. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government remain committed to the principles of RAWP, but they are properly reviewing the criteria, looking especially at matters such as inner city deprivation, the particular requirements of teaching hospitals, and so on, so that the RAWP formula is properly based.

Mr. Dobson: If Leicestershire has been benefiting so substantially from the Government's policies, why are 7,582 people there waiting for hospital treatment an increase, and why are 1,088 women waiting for gynaecological treatment in Leicestershire?

Mr. Hayhoe: Just think what the position would have been if the resources available to Leicestershire had remained at the level that we inherited from the previous Government. It would be very much worse than it is at present.

Mr. Ashby: We have an excellent cottage hospital in Ashby de la Zouch, which at present has only five beds for maternity cases. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it will remain open and available for the people of Ashby?

Mr. Hayhoe: I would certainly give considerable attention to any representations from my hon. Friend.

Mobility Allowance

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about mobility allowances for blind people; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We receive a wide range of representations on mobility allowance, but l am not aware of recent representations on behalf of blind people generally.

Mr. Thurnham: In view of the confusion that has arisen from certain recent cases, will my hon. Friend undertake to review the rules for mobility allowance, especially for those who are functionally incapable of being independently mobile?

Mr. Newton: I have seen my hon. Friend's early-day motion, and I pay tribute to the way in which he has pursued the case of Daniel Heaton. However, he will understand the difficulties, in that he is asking us to widen the criteria for mobility allowance in a way that would have substantial resource implications.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Minister aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are under increasing pressure to secure the mobility allowance for blind people? Is he further aware that mentally


handicapped people and those with multiple handicaps who cannot walk unaided feel that they are unjustly deprived of the allowance? Will he reconsider the whole matter and make a statement soon?

Mr. Newton: The fact that the problem goes beyond blind people to those with directional problems generally is precisely why I said what I did in my initial answer. The right hon. Gentleman, above all, knows the original purposes for which mobility allowance was introduced, and will take the point that I made in my original answer.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that although those with double sensory handicaps, such as the deaf blind, are few in number, they face grave mobility problems and need just as much help as those in wheelchairs? Does he accept that the present criteria, which involve an acceptance of danger to such people and others, certainly applies to that group?

Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts in this area. His mention of wheelchairs—at present there is a strong demand for the addition of outdoor, powered, occupant-controlled wheelchairs in the DHSS range—shows the problem of choosing priorities in this area.

Residential Accommodation

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received about the disposal of National Health Service residential accommodation for nurses and others.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): There have been virtually none since I announced that the policy of rationalising the Health Service's holdings of residential accommodation will be so administered that no one who lives in such accommodation will be made homeless as a result.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Secretary of State recall the Adjournment debate on this matter on 23 May, when the Minister for Health gave an undertaking that no one would be evicted from accommodation unless he or she was offered suitable alternative accommodation? Who will decide whether the accommodation is adequate in terms of rent, distance from the hospital and other matters? Will it be the Minister, the health authority or the nurse concerned? Will there be a right of appeal or arbitration on the matter?

Mr. Fowler: My right hon. Friend the Minister said that no one would be made homeless, that is that no one would be required to move without being offered a suitable alternative place in which to live. He also said that the NHS management board had been asked to review conditions under which staff occupy Health Service accommodation. Pending that review, health authorities are being asked not to implement plans that involve giving staff notice to quit.

Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that in the south-east in particular there is real difficulty because of the extraordinarily high price of housing? At the same time there is a good deal of surplus NHS property. How will my right hon. Friend handle the matter in the south-east?

Mr. Fowler: I acknowledge the issue that my hon. Friend raises. We want to ensure that health authorities

have sufficient accommodation for student nurses, junior doctors, and other trainees, to bring accommodation up to a reasonable standard and to improve the standards of accommodation. We also want to sell surplus accommodation which is standing empty. That state of affairs cannot be defended, and the sale will go ahead.

Mr. Kirkwood: The reassurances which the Minister gave last week and which have been repeated today by the Secretary of State, are welcome. If other accommodation is offered as being suitable, surely there should be some system of review.

Mr. Fowler: I am perfectly happy to look at that. We are reviewing the whole property management issue. I will ensure that the point is considered.

Mr. Raynsford: Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of staff who have given long service to the Charing Cross hospital in Fulham have been threatened with homelessness as a result of eviction from homes they occupy? Is he also aware that the number of nurses in the area is severely impaired by the lack of adequate accommodation there? What does the Secretary of State propose to do?

Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said he would know that, pending the review, health authorities have been asked not to implement plans that involve giving staff notice to quit under the residential accommodation rationalisation process. I hope that now he will be able to assure his constituents that that is the policy, and not spread rumours that are untrue.

Mr. McQuarrie: When the disposal of surplus accommodation is considered, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the problems that would arise in rural areas, such as at Ladysbridge hospital in my constituency, where the accommodation is essential to attract staff to care for mental and psychiatric patients? Will sympathetic consideration be given to the disposal of accommodation, bearing in mind the need to ensure that adequate accommodation is provided for such staff?

Mr. Fowler: We want to ensure that health authorities have enough accommodation for student nurses, junior doctors and other trainees. That remains the policy. We want to see that accommodation improved. I think my hon. Friend would agree that property that is standing empty should be sold if there is no use for it. He might also agree that if the tenants occupying such property want the right to buy, they should be given that right. That is what we are achieving.

Benefits (Students)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to conclude his consideration of the report of Social Services Advisory Committee on students' eligibility to benefits.

Mr. Newton: Shortly, I hope.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the report is a damning indictment of the Government's policy and that it makes it absolutely clear that it would be a major breach of social security policy to ensure that a group of people, namely students, fall below the safety net which is set by social security measures? The Government have a simple solution to the problem, which is to restore the


student grant to its 1979 level, which would mean that far fewer students would need to apply for social security to supplement their grant.

Mr. Newton: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. As the report has not yet been published, I do not know on what basis he rests his remarks. The Government are determined that the social security system should treat students fairly and sensibly within the context of policy towards students as a whole.

Mr. McCrindle: Does my hon. Friend accept that, because the housing benefit system was never designed to support the accommodation costs of students, there is a strong case for moving away from the heavy reliance on that system which has developed? Does he agree that in a year when the student grant increase has been restricted to 2 per cent., however, that may not necessarily be the best time to embark upon such a path? Would it not be better to do it progressively over a period?

Mr. Newton: I think there would be general agreement with my hon. Friend that, in the long run, it must be sensible to move away from the position in which we now find ourselves. I accept that the difficulty is finding a method of moving in that way which is fair and sensible, as I said earlier.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that students gain entitlement to such benefits only because they get the qualifications under the label of poverty? Does he not think that it would be heaping hardship upon hardship if he were to take away such benefits without giving anything in return through the student grant?

Mr. Newton: That is not strictly true. One of the difficulties is that the calculation of housing benefit for students is done in a way more favourable to them than to other claimants on similar incomes.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that the financial situation facing some students is very serious and that their ability to obtain part-time employment during vacations may vary from one area to another? Students in the north-east, for example, might find it extremely difficulty to get jobs. Should not the benefit system be so devised as to ensure that all students have an adequate standard of living to enable those undertaking serious study to do all the work required in order to obtain the qualifications that will be to their benefit and to that of our country?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's very general proposition. I am sure he is aware that in the proposals for consultation there is no question of withdrawing students' rights to supplementary benefit in appropriate circumstances during the long vacations. We have made a proposition concerning only the short vacations.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that given the Government's policy of reducing the student grant in real terms, and the social security provisions, some students cannot cope? Why did the Government set their face against student loans when they are now introducing them in the guise of overdrafts?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that part of the Government's proposition was an increase in student grant alongside changes in social security

provision. An important part of the package was an improvement in students' rights in relation to the disregards for housing benefit purposes.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the DHSS and the Department of Education and Science should ride in tandem on the question of student grants? Is it not time that they got together to hold a full review of the student grant system?

Mr. Newton: It is precisely because we are anxious to consider such questions, both within the DHSS and with Ministers in the Department of Education and Science, that we are taking the proper amount of time to consider them.

NHS (Staffing Levels)

Mr. Evennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with administrative staffing levels in the National Health Service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): We are concerned that administrative and clerical staffing levels in the National Health Service should be controlled so that resources can be concentrated on direct patient care. The contribution of administrative staff to the running of the service is necessary and valuable, but I believe that there is still scope for improvements in the use and efficiency of this staff group. The National Health Service management board is, therefore, conducting a review of administrative and clerical staffing to see what further action is needed.

Mr. Evennett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. In the South-East Thames region there are three administrators for every one doctor, and the administration is taking far too big a share of the resources. As a result, hospitals such as the Erith and District hospital in my constituency, which provides community care, do not obtain enough cash to provide the necessary service in the area. I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but hope that he will do even more to rectify the situation.

Mr. Whitney: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern, and I read with interest his exchanges with the chairman of the regional health authority. In making this judgment it is important to understand that, under the general heading of administrative and clerical staff, an important contribution is made by the clinically related administrative staff and, for example, by mental health care assistance.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the Minister give an undertaking that those who are prematurely retired from the National Health Service are not re-employed in the same class of work? Two sittings ago the Public Accounts Committee drew attention to some of the confusion that was apparent in the records of the NHS and of the Minister's Department.

Mr. Whitney: I take due note of that point. Indeed, I believe that action has been taken in response to the PAC's observations.

Mrs. Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that administrative staff in the NHS are often much maligned? Is he aware that they include such people as ward clerks and medical secretaries, who provide the essential back-up


for doctors, nurses and other paramedical staff, payroll clerks of what is now the largest employer in western Europe, and such other good people as chairmen of district health authorities and general managers, who were introduced under Conservative legislation? Is it not time that we stopped being quite so rude about administrative staff and recognised the work that they do?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with that general point. Just as we have significantly increased the number of doctors, dentists, nursery and midwifery staff, and professional and technical staff within the NHS, so, at the same time, there has been an increased need for back-up staff to reinforce those efforts.

Mr. Cyril Smith: The north-west region is appointing a growing army of public relations officers—I believe that three have been appointed in the past six months. What possible contribution do they make to health care? When will the Minister deal with the financing of the north-west region, where money is frittered away on, for example, public relations officers while wards and whole hospitals are being closed and nurses are being asked to take premature retirement?

Mr. Whitney: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding of the north-west region is increasing significantly above the rate of inflation. The employment of the administrative and clerical staff is one of those areas to be investigated by the management board review.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the Government's latest proposals to abolish or reduce the registration and inspection of private nursing homes will put thousands of vulnerable elderly and handicapped persons at risk? Will the Government withdraw that proposal, in the light of the recent appalling revelations about Oriel Lodge in Suffolk, which combines just about everything that can be wrong in the private sector—gross maltreatment of patients, an almost total lack of supervision and exploitive profits of £130,000 a year, made from just 10 mentally handicapped, helpless persons?

Mr. Whitney: As so often happens, the hon. Gentleman is misinformed. There are no such proposals. As to the performance of nursing homes, I am not surprised, but disappointed, that the hon. Gentleman concentrates his attack on the private sector while ignoring the deficiencies that are sadly all too often found in the statutory sector, of which the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) could tell him.

Departmental Offices (Staff)

Mr. Pike: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding staff levels at Department of Health and Social Security offices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Major): Staffing levels in local social security offices are a matter of constant concern to the Government. We take careful account of the representations which are received from various sources which include organisations representing the staff both locally and nationally. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that an additional 5,000 staff have been added above complement for the current year.

Mr. Pike: Will these 5,000 additional jobs be in DHSS offices to enable them to ensure that claimants get the money to which they are entitled? Is not the situation throughout the country much as it is in Burnley, where there are now fewer staff dealing with three times the number of claimants as in 1979? Is this not disgraceful, as people are not getting the benefits to which they are entitled?

Mr. Major: We are determined to deliver a cost-effective and efficient social security system, and we shall provide the staff for that purpose.

Mr. Dobson: When will the hon. Gentleman start?

Mr. Major: As to when we shall start, that is a substantial part of the social security review, which may have bypassed the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). In Burnley there has been an increase of 12½ people over the 1985–86 natural work load complement.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will my hon. Friend look at staffing levels in the city of Leicester, and particularly in the three local DHSS offices, which, after doing an excellent job, are facing a crisis as to whether they should continue with overtime or bring in casual labour to do the work that has been well carried out?

Mr. Major: We are carrying out a full complement review of staffing and the effect of that will be shown in the offices next year.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that, despite a large increase in the number of claimants at local DHSS offices, as in the Kingsbury road in my constituency, the staffing levels are below those of 1979? Can he assure us that the four extra staff allocated to the Kingsbury road DHSS offices will be sufficient to deal efficiently with the number of people claiming benefits there?

Mr. Major: I shall examine the position in the office quoted by the hon. Gentleman. With the 5,000 staff that have been approved, the national complement is now greater than it was in 1979. The hon. Gentleman might care to bear in mind that the equivalent of about 6,890 posts are no longer needed because of changes in procedures on statutory sick pay, housing benefit and postal review.

Mr. Forth: Is it not the case that the bold and excellent proposals being made to reform the social security system are designed to increase the number of people who will understand the system, raise the level of claims made and received and make the use of staff more efficient? Is this not the way to go, rather than piling more staff upon more in a system that is breaking down?

Mr. Major: My hon. Friend is right. In addition to his catalogue, the review will also ensure that we can deliver an efficient social security system. That is our intention.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that cuts of 10,000 jobs at DHSS offices since 1979, together with a near trebling of work loads as a result of soaring unemployment, has produced a plummeting of morale to the lowest level perhaps since 1948? Is he further aware that in one north London office, for example, it takes at least four weeks even for claims for urgent needs payments to be dealt with, even for household disabled persons with


no income? How long do the Government intend to allow staff to remain so grossly overworked, undertrained and underpaid?

Mr. Major: As ever, if one shows the hon. Gentleman a top, he will go well over it, and he has done so yet again. He clearly did not hear what I said a moment ago. Recently we authorised a substantial increase of 5,000 in complement. In addition, there has been a reduction in work load equivalent to nearly 7,000 jobs because of substantial changes in procedure. Further, if the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about delivering a good system, he might have given us a little more support, in the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Bill, for the reform that we are making.

Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister satisfied that the authorisation of 5,000 extra staff will be sufficient to meet the strong reservations expressed by the private consultants' report which was commissioned by his Department one and a half years ago on the staffing, training and retraining implications of the social security review?

Mr. Major: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question arises on a later question today. If the 5,000 additional staff are insufficient to deliver the service required, that will be revealed by the complement review that is now going on, and we shall deal with the result of the review at the end of this year.

Social Security Act 1985

Mr. Stern: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services in respect of which provisions of the Social Security Act 1985 draft regulations are still to be published.

Mr. Major: There are only two sets of regulations arising from the Social Security Act 1985 which remain to be published. These are regulations under section 3 of the Act concerning disclosure of information by occupational pension schemes and regulations under section 5 of the Act concerning managers of occupational pension schemes. Six sets of regulations dealing with new rights for early leavers of occupational pension schemes were made in December 1985 and have come into effect this year.

Mr. Stern: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his reply, which suggests the near completion of a successful exercise under the 1985 Act and indicates the outcome of a similar major exercise on what will undoubtedly be the 1986 Act. May I, however, draw his attention to the effects of one regulation, namely, the recent publication of the names of those advising the Secretary of State on personal pensions, and point out that not one person on that advisory panel can be said to represent the consumer interest?

Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend's advisory group is advising him on technicalities. There will, of course, be consultation with consumer interests. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the passage of the earlier sets of regulations. Of those still outstanding, I am pleased to tell him that we expect to publish and lay the disclosure regulations this month and bring them into effect later this year. Consultation is almost concluded on the regulations concerning managers of occupational pension schemes. We shall lay those regulations as soon as possible.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not surprised that the Minister was grateful to his hon. Friend for congratulations on publishing regulations when he has just said that he expects the disclosure regulations to be published—did he say this month? That is presumably a post-date from the original date of Easter, which was a post-date from the original date of January. If the regulations for this year's Social Security Bill are published with the dexterity, speed and competence of those for the 1985 Act, we shall still be doing the regulations in 1992.

Mr. Major: It would perhaps be indelicate to remind the hon. Lady of how long the Labour Government took to lay regulations after the Social Security Act 1975, but it was substantially longer than has been taken in recent months. There will be a number of consequential regulations under the 1986 Act. We shall consult and publish these as soon as possible after Royal Assent. I assure the hon. Lady that Royal Assent will be given.

Mr. Watts: Will my hon. Friend resist the temptation to be pushed along by the hon. Member for Derby. South (Mrs. Beckett) in the matter of disclosure regulations? Will he bear in mind the importance of ensuring that when they are introduced they do not impose onerous burdens on small schemes that make them more difficult to operate? Will he concentrate on getting them right, rather than on introducing them quickly?

Mr. Major: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of ensuring that the regulations are right. There may be a minor burden on schemes, but we are concerned primarily to ensure that the regulations enshrine existing good practice and that members of schemes have a rght, first, to know their entitlement, and, secondly, to know how the schemes are being managed.

St. James's Hospital

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will meet members of Wandsworth district health authority to discuss his proposal to close St. James's hospital.

Mr. Whitney: This is not a proposal of my right hon. Friend and it would not be appropriate for Ministers to intervene at this stage. All health authorities are required to consult formally on any proposals for closure or change of use of health premises. The Secretary of State will certainly take account of all the views expressed locally should a proposal come to him for final decision in due course. In the meantime, the hon. Member may wish to keep in contact with the chairman of Wandsworth district health authority on the matter.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that the Health Service in south London, particularly in Lambeth and Wandsworth, is in a state of chaos? The ambulance service cannot meet needs, hospitals are being closed temporarily and in-patient admissions are being cancelled at the last minute. Against this background, the suggestion that a much-needed and much-loved local hospital should he closed because of a lack of resources for Wandsworth is surely unthinkable. Is it not for the Minister to say to the health authority, "You can have the money. We do not want this hospital to be closed"?

Mr. Whitney: No, Sir, I am not so aware. If the hon. Gentleman refers to a debate that took place a week or two


ago he will see a statement on the future development of London's ambulance services. He will be aware of the new facilities that are becoming available within Wandsworth, such as the exciting new facilities at St. George's hospital.

Personal Pensions

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the response of financial institutions to the personal pensions proposals in the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Fowler: Yes. Insurance companies and the new providers like building societies and unit trusts are showing an encouraging and increasing interest in personal pensions.

Mr. McCrindle: I accept that it will most often be appropriate for people to remain within good occupational schemes, but does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that in future there is to be a choice? Will he join me equally in suggesting to the established pension funds that instead of complaining about the 2 per cent. incentive that is being given to the new personal pension arrangements they should welcome competition, on the basis that whichever scheme may be effected there is every reason to expect that competition will bring a better return?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. At present there are about 10 million or 11 million people without an occupational pension scheme of their own or without a personal pension. The current legislation gives them the right to choose. All the experience of other countries, notably the United States, is that competition between different providers takes charges down, and I think that that is what will happen in this country.

Mr. Marlow: Is there any possibility that the private sector will be able to devise a system of private pensions for the marauding anarchists who are causing so much distress in the west country at present? The public at large cannot perceive why these people should be getting taxpayers' money.

Mr. Fowler: I entirely understand what my hon. Friend has said and sympathise with it. I think he will agree with me, however, that it has precious little to do with personal pensions.

Breast Cancer

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on current steps being taken to provide screening facilities for breast cancer.

Mr. Hayhoe: The United Kingdom expert working group under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Patrick Forrest is now considering the policy options for breast cancer screening. Its final report will be ready later this year and I shall announce the Government's response as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kennedy: Will that inquiry, and will the Government's thinking on the matter, take into account international studies that show clearly that of the 10,000 or more deaths from breast cancer, over 30 per cent. are avoidable and preventable? Does he accept that more must

therefore be done by the Government centrally directing funds and centrally directing Health Service thinking towards prevention, especially of mammagraphic abnormalities?

Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will support the work being done by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest and his colleagues. Their interim report shows that there was a convincing case, on clinical grounds. for a change in United Kingdom policy on the provision of mammographic facilities and the screening of symptom-less women aged 50 and over. The committee is now considering the policy options, their costs, benefits and overall implications for the National Health Service. We expect that report towards the end of the year. We will come to a decision quickly after the report is published and announce our conclusions to the House.

Ms. Richardson: What I think the House would like to know is whether one additional woman will be screened as a result of the Government's initiative.

Mr. Hayhoe: Yes, that will happen. If we examine the record on these matters, which was set out fully in a debate on 5 February, it is clear that the Labour party has no claim worth hearing on this issue, if we compare its record with that of successive Conservative Governments.

Departmental Staff (Ernst and Whinney Report)

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has now received the Ernst and Whinney report on his Department's manning levels necessary to implement the provisions of the Social Security Bill; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Major: The study to which the hon. Member refers was carried out last year concurrently with the consultation period on the Social Security Green Paper proposals. The report was delivered to the Department in October 1985. It provided an independent initial view, to complement management's assessment, of the broad staffing implications of the then Green Paper proposals prior to the preparation of the White Paper and the Social Security Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Minister will be aware of the implications of the Social Security Bill that is passing through the other place. Will he assure the House that the Ernst and Whinney report will be published? The operational aspects of the changes are very important and will have far-reaching consequences. What plans do the Government have to publish the changes, so that the public can be made aware of what is to be expected when the system is implemented?

Mr. Major: The Ernst and Whinney study was only one of a number of studies—the others being made internally—that were carried out on staffing matters. It would be misleading to publish the study carried out on the Green Paper, as there have been structural alterations of some substance to the Bill.

NHS (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of the gross domestic product was spent on the National Health Service in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the percentage in 1978.

Mr. Fowler: Total health care spending in the United Kingdom represented 6·1 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1984; the corresponding figure for 1978 was 5·3 per cent. In 1984, 5·5 per cent. of GDP was spent on the National Health Service as compared to 4·9 per cent. in 1978.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these figures show the high priority that the Government have given to the National Health Service compared to that given to the service by their predecessors?

Mr. Fowler: Yes. The figures show that we are spending substantially more resources than were spent by the previous Labour Government. We are building more hospitals and, above all, we are treating more patients. That shows the Government's commitment to the National Health Service.

Drugs (Parallel Importing)

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the latest extent of parallel importing of drugs prescribed under the National Health Service.

Mr. Hayhoe: I regret that firm figures about parallel imported medicines dispensed under the National Health Service are not available, but unofficial estimates of between £80 million—£90 million a year have been published.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: May I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he may be underestimating the extent of parallel importing, and that consequentially he is over-remunerating those pharmacists who have access to these drugs? Will he do more to investigate officially the extent of parallel importing and try to prevent this unfairness?

Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the Department is about to hold a new inquiry into discounts enjoyed by retail pharmacists. This will take into account all discounts in the market place, including parallel imports.

Psychiatric Patients

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to establish the procedures provided for in the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Bill for assessment to be made before people are released into the community from psychiatric institutions; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: I cannot say. As my hon. Friend will be aware, parliamentary consideration of the Bill is not yet completed.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that, sadly, psychiatrically sick people have been released into the community without assessment who are incapable of living adequately, who break up their beds, and who terrorise their neighbours? Is it not wrong for people to be released into the community unless they are assessed as having the proper capability to live adequately in the community, often in built-up areas?

Mr. Newton: I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties, and that is why we have been anxious to co-operate with the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) over the Bill.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that the clause dealing with proper arrangements for hospital discharge was given an enthusiastic reception by' those who responded to the Government's document? Will he accept that that clause will lack real meaning unless it embraces joint assessments as between hospital managers and social services departments?

Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman is obviously aware, there is some uncertainty about the precise meaning of the clause, and further discussion of that matter is going on at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Dixon: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Dixon: Is the right hon. Lady aware that last year in the northern region over 23,500 jobs were lost in heavy manufacturing industry? Today, Swan Hunter is announcing massive redundancies, on top of those already announced in the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry and the engineering industry, and the last shipbuilding and ship repair facility in my constituency is virtually at an end. When will the Government do something to save our industrial base, or is the right hon. Lady prepared to sit back and allow the country to become what Napolean once described at "a nation of shopkeepers"?

The Prime Minister: Yes, the north-east has suffered because there was a concentration of heavy industries there. That is why regional aid is concentrated on that area, to try to get extra help to go there. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the order for the second oiler replenshment vessel was brought forward especially for Swan Hunter, subject to price. It had the second of the type 23 frigates, again subject to price, and it can bid for a further two type 23 frigates. So there are good possibilities for Swan Hunter if it can manufacture down to the price.

Mr. Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend now accept the recommendation of the Treasury and Civil Services Select Committee that the House should have an opportunity to debate public expenditure before the beginning of the annual review, rather than after it is all over? In particular, should we not have an opportunity to express our views on priorities, particularly, for example, with regard to the overseas aid programme, following the tremendous public response to the Sport Aid exercise?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be in order if he makes a speech on any matter relating to public expenditure in the debate on economic policies later today. With regard to overseas aid, particularly as it relates to Africa, I should point out that last year we spent about £550 million, taking into account those sums which were put through the multilateral agencies and our bilateral aid.

Mr. Hattersley: What pressure does the Prime Minister propose to exert on President Reagan to persuade him not to abandon the SALT II agreement and thus jeopardise the prospect of an autumn summit?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we regard it as important that the SALT II agreement continues to be observed, and observed by both sides. That is precisely what it means. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that when President Reagan gave warning that unless the Soviet Union complies with SALT II he would make different arrangements from November, he at the same time dismantled two Poseidon submarines in accordance with SALT II. We wish SALT II still to be regarded on both sides, and we hope that it will continue to be so.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Prime Minister now at least attempt to answer the question? Does she believe that the President should abandon SALT II, or does she believe that what I think she calls "the Russian case to answer" is in itself justification for abrogation?

The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman will never say anything about the Soviet Union not complying with SALT II. Never, never, never. I make it perfectly clear that I hope that SALT II will continue to be observed on both sides. President Reagan has just observed SALT II by breaking up two Poseidon submarines in accordance with SALT II. I hope that both sides will continue to comply.

Mr. Hattersley: The House and the country know perfectly well why the Prime Minister will not give a straight answer to that straight question. Why does she so regularly humiliate herself and this country by always dancing to President Reagan's tune? Does she not think that in the matter of world peace she has a duty to speak for this country, rather than wait to be told what to say by the President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking utter nonsense. I hope that SALT II will continue to be observed. The United States is observing SALT II by dismantling two Poseidon submarines. It has left the door open for the Soviet Union to comply with SALT II. I hope that it will do so, because there is a clear opportunity for the Soviet Union to respond positively.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the Dorset police for the firm but fair way in which they handled this so-called peace convoy at the weekend? At the same time, will she accept that most people are puzzled that such trespass and such disruption of a weekend and of our highways can be allowed to continue?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I share my hon. Friend's distaste for this whole matter. If by any chance the law on trespass is inadequate, we shall have to consider amending it.

Dr. Owen: How can President Reagan expect Mr. Gorbachev to visit him in Washington in December if in November President Reagan increases the number of cruise missiles on the B52 aeroplanes? Surely the Prime Minister ought to show her convictions at the Dispatch Box and make it clear that the abandonment of SALT II would be a disaster and that her Government would not support that.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make it equally clear that if there is an agreement it has to be complied with by both sides. The United States is complying with it. It has given a number of details where it thinks the Soviet Union is not complying with it. The reply from the Soviet Union has not dealt with those non-compliance points. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will at least agree that both sides must comply with the agreement, and the United States is doing so.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), while I am delighted that my right hon. Friend will look at the question of trespass and the law, may I ask whether she is satisfied that the law is being obeyed to the extent that benefits are being properly paid to these hippies? Is she satisfied that their children are being properly educated within the law and that the health legislation is being properly enforced by the health authorities?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, matters such as vehicle registration are wholly matters for the police. He asked about the benefits that these people receive. So that there should be no possibility of fraud or of people appearing at one benefit office having received benefit from another, there is a social security officer attached to them to see that duplication does not occur. [Interruption.] I had exactly the same reaction as Opposition Members when I read that, but then I was told that there was a tendency for these people to apply to one office and go on to another one and apply again. The social security authorities thought it important to take action to avoid that.

Mr. Dobson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dobson: What credence can the Prime Minister place in the reasons that President Reagan has given for withdrawing from the SALT treaty, when he personally misled her over the accuracy of F111 bombers on the raid on Libya?

The Prime Minister: I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's assertion. He asked what credence I place in the United States agreement on SALT II. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, and I have repeated it several times, that when the President made the announcement he simultaneously acted in accordance with SALT II by dismantling and breaking up two Poseidon submarines. One could have no better evidence than that.

Mr. Squire: When the Cabinet discusses public expenditure in the near future, will my right hon. Friend look in particular at a number of housing aspects, including the desirability of phasing out all bed-and-breakfast accommodation for the homeless, which is both expensive and unnecessary? Will she also consider the reintroduction of improvement grants at a higher level, as they are a classic illustration of the way in which public money can stimulate greater private investment?

The Prime Minister: I notice that if my hon. Friend is proposing additional expenditure he carefully proposes


economies equal to the additional expenditure. I hope that his example will be followed by all right hon. and hon. Members.

F111 Aircraft

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list those characteristics of F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom which rendered their use essential for the United States' attack on Libya.

The Prime Minister: The F111 aircraft based in the United Kingdom provided the best equipped means of carrying out the United States operation against specific terrorist targets in Libya, with the lowest possible risk of Libyan civilian and United States service casualties. As the United States has indicated, the F111 possesses advanced avionics and other capabilities which made it particularly suitable for such a mission.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister name the senior American, or Americans, who told her that the F111 is were more precise than the carrier-based aircraft?

The Prime Minister: That was the advice that we received both from across the Atlantic and from home.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had not given permission for the F111 s to be utilised, the Americans would have gone ahead, used less accurate aircraft and there would have been more civilian casualties?

The Prime Minister: As I said when I spoke to the House on this matter, I understand that the raid would have gone ahead in any event.

Mr. Stuart Holland: The Prime Minister referred to the United Kingdom's aid budget to Africa.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about the F111.

Mr. Marlow: What effect has the raid had on Colonel Gaddafi's ability to wage international terrorism?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the raid had a great effect. I believe that it showed that the United States was prepared to use force in self-defence against terrorism. That in itself is a salutary warning.

Mr. Wareing: Will the Prime Minister say what kind of self-defence should be conducted by the Nicaraguan Government against the terrorist in the White House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not relate to this question, which is about Libya. It is a definitive question.

Mr. Wareing: As the United States believed that it was necessary to use F111s——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is wasting time.

Engagements

Mr. Litherland: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Litherland: Does the Prime Minister agree with Mr. Bob Geldof's vivid description of the Foreign Secretary's speech at the United Nations? However crudely it was put, was it not a fair and just assessment of the cant and hypocrisy of this Government's aid to the Third world, compared with the Live Aid events? Does the right hon. Lady realise that her Government are now branded as a Government without compassion?

The Prime Minister: There are 550 million reasons why that assertion is not true. I have already said that £550 million was given by the taxpayer, through this Government, to Africa in one year both in bilateral and in multilateral aid. That was a generous contribution to the problems of that troubled continent.

Mr. Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread public support for her restatement this afternoon of the mutual obligations under the SALT II treaty? Does she agree that treaties lightly cast aside may be lightly entered into?

The Prime Minister: Treaties should not be lightly entered into. This one was not lightly entered into. It was never ratified by the United States, because in the meantime the Soviet Union went into Afghanistan, which country it still occupies. Nevertheless, the United States has continued to observe the treaty and I believe that it is anxious that both sides should continue to observe it.

Mr. Eadie: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Eadie: As the Prime Minister has shown concern about litter in our streets when viewing from a car window and has asked that something be done about it, I wonder whether the right hon. Lady would consider at long last travelling by British Rail? If she looked out of the window she would see the litter of industrial devastation that the economic policies of her Government have perpetuated, and she might do something about that too.

The Prime Minister: With regard to the implications of the question, an initiative will shortly be announced on improving the environment with regard to litter. With regard to the greater matter, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, regional aid is now slanted towards creating more jobs in those regions, and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has taken extensive action, all of which the hon. Gentleman will find set out extensively in the new booklet "Action for Jobs".

Hippy Convoy (New Forest)

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: (by private notice),asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Hampshire about the hippy convoy currently occupying Crown land in the New Forest.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As the House will know, the so-called peace convoy was evicted from Mr. Attwell's farm at Cook's Carey in Somerset last week, and from Yeovil it moved into Dorset. It passed through Dorset during the weekend, causing serious dislocation to traffic on the way, and on Sunday evening moved into Hampshire. I have been in touch with the Hampshire police this morning, and I understand that on Sunday night a group consisting of some 115 vehicles and about 300 people camped on a minor road in the New Forest at Stoney Cross. Yesterday the police ordered them to move for obstructing the highway, and they moved on to the land adjoining the road, which belongs to the Forestry Commission. I understand that the commission is issuing proceedings today for recovery of the land and seeking an expedited hearing. If the commission is granted a possession order, the police will assist the sheriff, as they have at previous evictions.
That is the present situation as reported by the chief constable. Hon. Members from the west country will be aware of the immense policing difficulties created by the peace convoy, because, as anyone whose constituency has been visited by the convoy knows, it is anything but peaceful. Indeed, it resembles nothing more than a band of medieval brigands who have no respect for the law or for the rights of others. All hon. Members will have watched with sadness and anger the ordeal of Mr. Attwell at their hands. It is plainly not acceptable that a group of this kind should inflict such harm and distress on law-abiding citizens and, of course, the law of the land does not accept such behaviour. Criminal powers are available to the police and civil remedies to the dispossessed occupier. Following a meeting recently with two of my hon. Friends, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is considering urgently how the civil law procedures might be streamlined in order to grant more speedy recovery of the possession of land.
The criminal law has an important part to play. The police have wide powers to take action where there is an imminent risk of a breach of the peace; they have powers to prevent obstruction of the highway; and they have powers to arrest for offences such as criminal damage. We have strengthened these powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1985. The Public Order Bill, if enacted, will further strengthen police powers and it will extend the public order offences in clauses 4 and 5—threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct — to offences committed on private land. I hope that this important Bill will soon be on the statute book.
Understandably people have asked whether any new police powers are required, and in particular whether any change to the law of trespass is required. There are strong arguments against making simple trespass a criminal offence. No one wants to criminalise the activities of a group of ramblers, and no one wants to harass genuine

gipsies. But we are discussing with the police, and in meetings held this week with the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association, whether some further strengthening of the law is required and, if so, what form that change should take. It may be that wider consultation will be required. What I can say today is that we are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this issue; that we have the matter very much in hand and that, if any further changes in the law beyond those we already propose are required, we shall not hesitate to introduce them.
We are of course in close touch with the police forces concerned and they are in close touch with each other. No one should underestimate the difficulties involved in policing the convoy, and I am grateful for the messages of support that I have received from hon. Members in the west country for the police in their areas. I am in no doubt about the resolve of the police to deal as they judge best with the criminal offences committed by the convoy. It is not just the criminal law that is flouted by the convoy. The other arm of our strategy must be to ensure effective action not just by the police but by any other public agency whose services the convoy exploits and whose rules it flouts. The peace convoy is not entitled to special treatment for exemptions simply because its members wish to contract out of their responsibilities as citizens.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of the vehicles in which this anarchic group travels, with its own legal adviser, are untaxed, untested and uninsured? Why cannot action be taken to remove those vehicles from the roads. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that the group has, in one form or another, been in existence for many years? The Government should do something now. Passing the problem from my constituents to someone else is no answer. It could potentially be extremely dangerous because one is dealing with a large unruly group. What action is to be taken to break up the group into smaller groups of a manageable size?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend has said. I agree that it is not enough simply to speed the so-called peace convoy on its way, without regard to its law-breaking activities. If my hon. Friend listened to my statement, he will have heard that that was the thrust of it. The chief constables in the areas involved know of their duty to enforce the law and of the wide powers that they already have. It is for them to make their own judgments about the use of those powers under the operational independence that they have.
The law on the specific point that my hon. Friend raised is that the police have no power to prevent the further movement of an unroadworthy or untaxed vehicle. What they have is the power to issue a summons. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act they will have a new power to arrest an alleged offender if no satisfactory address is given.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Will the Home Secretary say why his Government have failed to respond to a request from Somerset county council a year ago about where responsibility for dealing with the matter should lie? Is it not the case that the Government's indecision on the matter has left the police with a law which is either unenforceable or inadequate and farmers with a major threat to their livelihood?
Will the Home Secretary now grasp the nettle, first by providing the police with the resources that they need to enforce the law; secondly, by strengthening the law on trespass, particularly in relation to mass trespass with vehicles; thirdly, by saying where responsibility for dealing with the matter should lie; and, finally, by providing facilities for the hippy convoy so that its freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman continues to amaze us with his contortions on the matter. There is no difficulty in understanding where responsibility lies. The police have wide powers under the existing law. They have powers as regards a breach of the peace and as regards criminal damage. Their powers have been strengthened in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We are proposing new powers in the Public Order Bill that is being strongly contested in Committee. Those powers would extend the offence of threatening damage to private land and would create a new offence of disorderly conduct. The hon. Gentleman should have a word with his hon. Friends about the attitudes of the alliance parties. I have said, as the Prime Minister said before me, that if, in addition to the powers which already exist and in addition to the powers that we propose in the Public Order Bill, it turns out that further powers are required we shall not hesitate to introduce them.

Mr. Robert Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Is he aware that my constituents suffer the attention of these unlovely people? As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has said, this is a long-standing problem of a collection of thoroughly aggressive, anti-social people who are intent, among other things, on provoking the police. If the House passes legislation, as it has, to make it illegal for more than six pickets to congregate at a given place during an industrial dispute, cannot legislation be considered that would start by making it illegal, except for the public services, for more than a specified number of vehicles to travel round the countryside on public roads?

Mr. Hurd: I listened with care to my hon. Friend's suggestion. The trouble with his suggestion and others I have heard is that it might deal effectively with this mischief but would create many other problems which its authors did not intend. That is why, as I have said, we intend to consult urgently. If, in addition to the existing powers of the police and the proposals in the Public Order Bill, we can find a way of meeting this mischief without adding other problems to it, we shall take that course.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the same law available to deal with this convoy as was used to deal with the Kent miners during the miners' dispute when, effectively, men from the south were prevented from moving north? Can I assure my constituents in south Leeds, where we often have large numbers of vehicles occupied by travelling tinkers which nobody has been concerned with, that the same urgency will be used to deal with our problem as is now being used to deal with this problem in the south?

Mr. Hurd: Certainly, the law is the same in whatever part of the country it may be flouted. The police have the same power to anticipate a breach of the peace which they reasonably fear and I understand that the Dorset police have been using that power.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Dorset police on the splendid job they did peacefully to contain the damage, disturbance, fear and the threat to farmers and jobs that were caused by the hippy convoy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] With your persmission, Mr. Speaker, I shall refer to my notes. Will my right hon. Friend with me deplore the attack on the Dorset police made by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) with no justification? Does he agree that the problem of such a convoy, which consists of 130 vehicles, derives from its size? Therefore, policies designed to disperse such a convoy and to include a provision in the Public Order Bill which will allow us to deal with large mass convoys of this kind is the correct approach?

Mr. Hurd: It is the intention of the chief constables who have been dealing with this problem to take action under their powers to disperse the convoy. I think that they have had some success in that and the number of vehicles is rather less than that which afflicted the people in Wiltshire a year ago.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. I think that it is a little too easy to hold a political position and criticise chief constables for the exercise of their powers under the law. Our job is to ensure that those powers are adequate.

Dr. David Clark: I appreciate the difficulties with this particular hippy convoy. However, does not the Minister realise that his announcement today will cause serious concern, especially when he refers to extending the simple trespass law?
The right hon. Gentleman told the House that he was prepared to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association.
Is he aware that 20 per cent. of the people in this country have walking as their principal recreation? Is he prepared to meet representatives of the Ramblers Association, Youth Hostels Association and Open Spaces Society before he contemplates changing the law? Is he aware of the danger of applying the particular to the general when one is talking about legislation?

Mr. Hurd: It would be a poor day if Home Office Ministers did not meet the National Farmers Union or the Country Landowners Association. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our doors are also open to the Ramblers Association and others. I specifically said that there were strong arguments, which the police sustained with vigour, against a general criminalisation of trespass, not least for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. Although we have found some answers in the Public Order Bill, we must search for a way of distinguishing between what the hon. Gentleman is talking about and the undoubted mischiefs which concern my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson).

Mr. Ian Gow: If the law relating to obstruction of the public highway is adequate, as I think my right hon. Friend has told the House, can he give an assurance that those whom he describes as medieval brigands will not be able to obstruct the highway on further journeys of the so-called peace convoy?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend knows that the law on obstruction of the highway, as with the law on criminal damage and on breach of the peace, is wide and gives


substantial powers to the police. It is for the chief officers of police in each county to decide, in the best interests of their county and according to their judgment of the local position, how, when and with what force to use the powers that Parliament has conferred on them.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private notice question, not a statement. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes, after which we have another private notice question.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Why is it that during the miners' strike more than 700 people could be arrested simply for shouting "Scab" or stepping off a pavement, and ancient laws called "besetting" could be found under which men could be arrested simply for staring at somebody, yet in this case the Home Secretary wrings his hands and asks for sympathy?

Mr. Hurd: That is not an accurate summary of my statement. The hon. Gentleman will find that action has been taken to arrest and bring to justice a large number of people who have broken the law during the peace convoy. The police will continue to work in the south-west of England and in the hon. Gentleman's part of the world to protect citizens against law breaking from whatever source it comes.

Mr. Robert Key: My constituents in south Wiltshire are angry and frightened, and it gives them little pleasure that the Paddy-come-latelies are now interested in a problem with which they have lived for more than 10 years.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to see a peaceful resolution of the problem, it is essential to have a cooling-off period and for an independent committee to report within days, not months, on what has happened? There must be an immediate and properly resourced inquiry, and the travellers must not attempt to battle their way to Stonehenge this year because it will only lead to further real trouble.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend was probably the first hon. Member to take an informed and continuing interest in this matter for reasons which are deeply rooted in his constituency. Therefore, I listen carefully to what he says. However, I am not sure that an independent inquiry of the type he mentioned would do good. We must support the police and the chief officers in their efforts to enforce the existing law, get the Public Order Bill on the statute book, see if any further powers are required, and look at the action of all Government agencies to ensure that we all row together, not towards some great battle or confrontation—I agree with my hon. Friend about that—but towards a resolution of the problem on the basis of respect for the law.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Home Secretary aware that many of us who have no sympathy for this unruly group are nevertheless frightened by the emotions which the incident has whipped up among Members on the other side of the House? Will he take care to ensure that in the heat of the moment he does not start along the road of criminalising the law on trespass?

Mr. Hurd: The emotion is fairly general and understandable, and I am sure that it is not confined to

supporters of one political party. Indeed, the correspondence columns of the newspapers show that. I hope that my statement, read as a whole, reflects to some extent the anxiety which the hon. Gentleman reflects, and deals effectively with the anxiety and emotion which clearly exist.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: As one who would oppose criminalising trespass and certainly does not wish the police to be used as the private agents of private landowners, may I ask my right hon. Friend nevertheless to acknowledge that it is far more difficult and causes far more casualties, especially to the police, to remove those people from land which they have no business to occupy than it is to prevent them from going there in the first place? Recalling my right hon. Friend's interest in the Committee on the Public Order Bill, may I ask him to say that when the Bill reaches another place he will do his utmost to ensure that clauses 4 and 5 apply to private land and are effective instruments through which the police can act?

Mr. Hurd: Both those clauses, which deal with threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct, would apply in respect of private land. In the earlier part of his question, my hon. Friend was pushing us very much in the direction in which our minds are already moving. I hope that people will not get the impression that there is no effective criminal law in the matter. The criminal law already gives the police substantial powers to deal with such an incident. The Public Order Bill will add to them.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Home Secretary may have the matter in hand, but he certainly does not have it under control. I remind him that last year my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and I, with limited support from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), came close to getting an agreement by which the Department of the Environment would negotiate with the Department of Defence to have suitable land set aside for the group to provide sufficient time to arrange a long-term solution for both a festival and the travellers. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not think that that is necessary, they had better decide where the houses will come from to house those people if they return to their former way of life.
I remind the Home Secretary that the Secretary of State for the Environment negotiated with the group and other groups to have access to Stonehenge. If the Home Secretary persists in using the police as though they were the Tory party's private army, he will continue to whip up hostility within the police, because the police do not like being used in such a role when it is not necessary, any more than the farmers like their land being used. The Government have caused riots not only in the inner cities in relation to industrial disputes, but in the byways and fields of England.
When the right hon. Gentleman answers, will he take the opportunity to remind the minority in his own party, who are betraying dangerously fascist symptons, that when they talk of making people conform, that is precisely the language that was used in Nazi Germany, and that when people failed to conform they were put in concentration camps and gas chambers? Will the right hon. Gentleman renounce that behaviour by his own party supporters?

Mr. Hurd: Where is the right hon. Gentleman for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)? We need him badly. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), in an amazing way, followed up his attack yesterday on Sir Kenneth Newman with an extraordinary attempt to turn this into a party political issue. Anyone reading or listening to his remarks must think that they bear no relation to reality. The only serious point he made was his first point. In that respect, he misread the nature and intention of the so-called peace convoy. However many sites were provided for those people, at the public expense, I do not think that they would stay in them or abide by the law.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as the law stands at the moment, this remains a Hampshire problem? Hampshire has a good record of resettling gipsies and travellers, but this is asking a bit much. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a national problem needing a national solution?

Mr. Hurd: The chief officers of police in Wessex and the Government agencies involved need to continue to put their heads together. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that it is not thought that the peace convoy comes within the definition of the Caravan Sites Act 1968

Geevor Tin Mine

Mr. David Harris: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the Geevor Tin Mine.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Morrison): After detailed and careful appraisal, the Department has reluctantly concluded that Geevor Tin Mine's latest proposals do not offer sufficiently robust prospects of commercial viability to justify financial assistance on the scale requested. The company has been notified of this decision.

Mr. Harris: I accept that my hon. Friend had to make a very difficult decision, and that Geevor was clearly the most vulnerable Cornish mine, but does he realise that the decision has caused those in west Cornwall deep dismay? I visited the miners last night and they were in a stunned state that was, I am afraid, giving way to anger. One can understand that.
Will my hon. Friend say something more about the £1 million of assistance that the Government are making available to west Cornwall? Will he also say something about the office that he is setting up? Can he hold out some hope to the rest of the Cornish tin industry? Does he agree that the decision does not sound the death knell for the tin industry but that, hopefully, other mines will survive the crisis and perhaps one day, who knows, Geevor will come back to life?

Mr. Morrison: I agree that the decision was very difficult. We have debated the situation in Cornwall, arid particularly in west Cornwall. several times and it is, indeed, very difficult.
My hon. Friend referred to the business improvement services. We hope that within a few weeks we shall be able to set up an office in close proximity to Geevor with three officials to administer the scheme. I cannot at present say precisely where it will be. My hon. Friend asked about the future of the Cornish tin industry. As the house knows, other applications are being processed.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Does the Minister accept that his decision has destroyed a community, a lifestyle and a tradition, and will inevitably lead to an unemployment rate of 50 per cent in the area? Precisely why did the application fail? The Minister said that it was not vigorous enough. How did it fail the test of commercial viability? In reality, is not the message that if those 300 miners bought clapped-out vehicles that did not have MOTs, some wigwams, arid semi-trained dogs, and camped out in Hyde Park, the House and Britain's journalists would show far more interest in this tragedy?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has done Cornish tin miners, and particularly those at Geevor, less than a service. All hon. Members have rightly paid great attention to the predicament in which the tin miners find themselves. But the hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerated, when he said that there would be 50 per cent. unemployment, although I accept that the figure is very high and that we are talking about a very depressed part of Cornwall. The application was turned down, like many other applications for regional grants, on grounds of


commercial viability. We must have certain criteria. If the hon. Gentleman was in my position, he would have them, too.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recommended, after a very thorough investigation, that there should be support from public funds for Geevor's programme in order to enable it to produce tin at a reduced price. He could have made the decision that Geevor's future was not viable only by making certain assumptions about the future price of tin. What assumptions did he make about the price of tin in three and five years' time? The present price reflects the fact that banks have unloaded their tin warrants, which were the securities for their loans on money advanced to the London metal exchange. Is my hon. Friend aware that, following the absurdly high prices caused by the cartel arrangement, tin production has fallen by about 40 per cent? I repeat—what assumption did my hon. Friend make about the world price of tin in three and five years' time, without which he could not have made any judgment about the viability of Geevor, Pendarves, South Crony or Wheal Jane?

Mr. Morrison: Of course I am aware of the Select Committee's recommendations on Geevor, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intends to reply very shortly to the Select Committee.
My hon. Friend asked what assumptions we made. We looked at the assumptions in the Geevor application for the price of tin at the stage when the company would wish to produce from the current Geevor mining operation. That price was on the best advice that my Department has, within the band of what the price would be in five years' time. At this stage, in view of the fact that applications are being processed and looked at, in particular that from Rio Tinto Zinc, it would be inappropriate to say precisely what the price was.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that the cost of flooding those mines, in terms of employment and the viability of communities, is far higher than the sum of money that he was being asked to contribute to keep them open? Is he also aware that, once the mines are flooded, he will have handed down the ultimate death sentence to the whole area? I hope that he will be able to sleep at night after that.

Mr. Morrison: I am very much aware of the point that the hon. Lady makes about the community. I am also aware of her point about turning off the pumps. That was why I was prepared to put up a matching £40,000 to keep the pumps operating for a further four to five weeks while we looked at the second application. We wished to see whether there was any proper way to operate the mines commercially in the future.

Mr. David Mudd: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Government are facing a major crisis with petty cash solutions? My hon. Friend has suggested that £1 million will be made available to the St. Ives and Penzance areas to bring them through this crisis, a sum that is to be spread over four years. My hon. Friend has told us that it will be administered by three civil servants, who will no doubt require office and back-up

accommodation, so that we are talking about an input of probably less than £180,000 each year for the next four years to solve this massive crisis. Can my hon. Friend come up with something more promising, hopeful and positive?

Mr. Morrison: I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not welcome this substantial sum of money. We expect that in the first year £250,000 will be spent. Three officials in the right area to advise on any request is the right number to administer the scheme.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that he has looked at this problem in the short term rather than in the long term and that this is a short-term solution? Will he re-read the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which pointed out that if the grant had been made to the mines, they would have been competitive against the prices that might be prevailing in five to 10 years? Would not this have been a practical solution? Does he further agree that the £1 million, spread over four years, will provide only candyfloss and ice cream jobs, which are purely seasonal, when what are needed are real jobs and real help?

Mr. Morrison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we looked at the Geevor application, we did not consider it only in the short term. I appreciate his point, but, because of the current state of the tin market, that would not have been a solution by any stretch of the imagination. We were looking forward five years out from now.
As to the point about business improvement services, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his experience in our part of the country that the scheme is popular. I am sorry that he does not welcome the scheme, even though he may not agree that it goes as far as he would like it to.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: When are we likely to have the decision on the RTZ application? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of people employed in those pits are members of my union, and they feel that the decision announced yesterday sounds the death knell for the whole of the Cornish tin industry?

Mr. Morrison: To deal with the hon. Gentleman's second question first, he should not draw any particular analogy from yesterday's decision with any future decision, because each application will be considered on its merits. I hope that we shall be able to give a decision in the next five or six weeks. I would not wish to be precisely tied to that date, because it is important for the company and its employees that we should explore every possible avenue.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I have every sympathy with the problems of the distressing situation that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and his constituents face, but is it not the case that £25 million was being requested to sustain 375 jobs? Is that not at the rate of about £60,000 per job and, with the best will in the world, is that not rather above the odds for providing Government money to sustain employment?

Mr. Morrison: I am not in a position, because the applications are dealt with commercially and in confidence, to confirm or deny the figures that my hon. Friend has given. The cost per job would have been very expensive indeed.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is there not a big difference between saving the jobs of a few bankers at Johnson Matthey, which cost the taxpayer £100 million, and the 300 jobs that are due to be lost in the Geevor mine? Have not the Government a strange list of priorities when they have before them a paper from the oil industry in which the companies say that, because of the fall in oil prices, they will need some special tax relief from the Government to exploit the small pools of oil in the North Sea——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about tin.

Mr. Skinner: I am drawing an analogy, Mr. Speaker.
The Government are prepared to back the oil barons but not to protect the jobs of 300 miners in Cornwall and prevent the many more hundreds of redundancies that will follow if other pits close. Is not the job of a miner just as important as those of the bureaucrats in the Common Market? We have just paid £250 million to bail out that clapped-out organisation the Economic Community. Are not the jobs of the miners as important as those of the bankers at Johnson Matthey? The Government will use the test of viability to suit the casino economy, but they will not do so to look after people's jobs.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman, as always, makes a cheap party political point. If he had been involved, as I have been in the past two months, in all the work put into looking at the first and second applications to see whether it was possible to help, he would not have put such a question.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is this not a tragic and sad end to an inglorious catalogue of Government blunders and failures? Does the Minister

remember that the Select Committee condemned the Government for giving a warning of the impending tin crisis in such imprecise terms as to be worthless? Is he aware that the Committee deplored the Secretary of State's refusal to give full answers to questions, the same evasiveness that was repeated today when the Minister refused to give us information on the future of tin prices?
Does the Minister also recollect that the Select Committee stated categorically that the Cornish tin industry is worth saving and went on specifically to recommend that Government aid be given to Geevor? Why are the Government so contemptuous of a Select Committee when the cost of aid is less than the cost of the unemployment?
Have the Government no sense of the absurd? Does not the Minister realise that an offer of £1 million aid is so derisory as to be a gross insult? Will he recognise that today Geevor has been condemned to die, and the people of Cornwall will never forgive the Governent for their lack of preparedness, lack of interest, and their pathetic ineffectiveness?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates the response to the further applications. As he is aware, because I have said so, the only response so far given is that to the application on Geevor. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will soon be replying, as is the parliamentary convention, to the recommendations of the Select Committee.
I would like, as much as the right hon. Gentleman, to give a grant to Geevor so that the mine could become commercially viable. It just did not prove possible. I do not think that, over the next three or four years, the recipients of the £1 million will consider it the gross insult that is suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Swan Hunter (Redundancies)

Mr. Ted Garrett: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
'the announcement of redundancies today at Swan Hunter shipbuilders.'
I do not wish to detain the House for too long, but, in accordance with Standing Order No. 10, I wish to seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to draw the attention of the House to the announcement this afternoon that Swan Hunter is to declare immediately 825 employees redundant. Some time should be allocated by the House to debate this matter.
The apathy of the House, the Government and indeed the nation is something which disturbs me very much, bearing in mind that we are still a maritime nation. Unless we take seriously the decline in shipbuilding, particularly in Tyneside and Wallsend, we are on a course which will mean the extinction of our maritime fleet, our defence capabilities and, of course, ultimately shipbuilding. On this premise alone, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will approve my request for a debate on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the announcement of 1,000 redundancies today at Swan Hunter shipbuilders.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the only consideration I have to bear in mind is whether to give this matter precedence over the Orders set down for today or tomorrow. I fully understand the importance of this matter to him and his constituents. I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Peter Shore: We have listened to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I have no desire to challenge it, but this is clearly a major new development. We have just heard a statement about the redundancy of 350 people—tragically unnecessary—and the closure of the Geevor mine. Surely, with the Leader of the House listening to what has been said, we can expect a full statement tomorrow on the matter which has been raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Sunday Times (Report)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your knowledge that yesterday I raised with your office a possible point of order arising out of a report in the Sunday Times that the debate on Friday, resulting from my luck in the ballot, is to be squeezed out by the device of talking all through the night on the Channel Tunnel procedural motion. Let me say straight away that I acquit the Leader of the House of any such manipulation. I go further and acquit the Government Whips of having been in any way involved. My understanding is that Mr. Bernard Ingham took it on himself, in order to help press colleagues, to say that what was suggested in the Sunday Times should indeed take place.
Should a civil servant, however eminent and powerful, take it upon himself to make judgments on the business of the House of Commons? Is that his competence?

Mr. Speaker: I saw the report in the Sunday Times and I read it with interest. It is, of course, press speculation and I have no idea whether Mr. Ingham is responsible, but he is not a Member of this House and I have no jurisdiction over him.
Later—

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I am sorry that he has gone—many of us would be quite happy to have his motion debated on Friday because it would be defeated by many votes. If the hon. Gentleman wants the debate, he may have it.

Mr. Speaker: As far as I am concerned, the motion is on the Order Paper and I shall be here on Friday.

Privilege

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point which concerns your responsibilities as against those of the Liaison Committee.
Today, at midday, I gave a copy of PAC 185 to Mr. Christopher Moncrieff of the Press Association. PAC 185 is entitled "Cost improvement programmes in individual districts" — that is, health districts. The document consists of a reply from Mr. Victor Paige, chairman of the National Health Service management board, to a question I asked him in public session of the Public Accounts Committee while we were taking evidence on value-for-money developments in the National Health Service.
This is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, because during the course of the Committee proceedings Mr. Paige, for obvious reasons, was not in a position to give a reply on the detail of particular health authority efficiency arrangements. He agreed to provide the answers as supplementary evidence. That evidence was received by the clerk of the PAC. It was not published by the Committee and is therefore unreported evidence.
It is a breach of privilege for a Member of this House to reveal unreported evidence given to a Select Committee. I make it clear that I am opposed to the release of unreported evidence which is either commercially confidential or classified. PAC 185 falls under neither of these headings. It is no more than the answer to a question which would have been given in public session of the PAC had the witness had the information available to him at that time. It is nevertheless, under present rules, a breach of privilege to reveal such a document's contents.
My breach of privilege was in the public interest. I have written to the Chairman of the Privileges Committee drawing attention to it with the request that my breach of privilege be referred to the Committee as a matter of complaint. Can you assure me, Mr. Speaker, that this matter will not be dealt with by the Liaison Committee, which is what we resolved during the course of the three debates we have had on the matter over the past two months, as I wish for a definitive judgment from the Privileges Committee which will enable the House to have access to these unreported documents, which should be in the public domain, because they are neither classified nor commercially in confidence.

Mr. Speaker: Have I got the gist of the hon. Gentleman's application? He wishes his own breach of privilege to be referred to the Privileges Committee. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will carefully consider his application.

EDUCATION (NO. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That the Education (No. 2) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Malone.]

Accomplice Evidence (Northern Ireland)

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide with certain exceptions for a mandatory requirement that an accused person in Northern Ireland shall not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice.
I wish to bring in the Bill because of the grave concern in Northern Ireland about this practice. The concern is not confined to one section of the community. It transcends all political parties and it centres on the abhorrence of a practice which is sending people to prison for long periods on what can only be regarded as less than satisfactory evidence.
On many occasions in Northern Ireland the law has been used for the purpose for which it was never designed—it has been used to solve political problems—and every time that happens confidence in the law has been diminished and eroded. That is not a new experience for us. Some 180 years ago Jefferson warned the American people that if one sacrificed security for justice one would lose both. Tragically that is what we seem to continue to do in the north of Ireland, especially through the use of the supergrass system. The time has come for the Government to grasp this nettle. They must realise their responsibilities and try to resolve this matter in a satisfactory way.
The Bill which I wish to present seeks to abolish the use of uncorroborated evidence as the basis for convictions. The supergrass system places an intolerable burden on the courts and the judges and it distorts the public's perspective of the process of justice. It is almost grotesque to consider some of the elements of the system. Indeed, it is rather like reading a Kafka novel when one examines some of the studied elements of supergrass trials.
I shall give an example. A charge was brought—this is a matter of court record — on the evidence of a supergrass. A person was charged with
possession on dates unknown with persons unknown of unexploded and undiscovered bombs.
The person charged with that charge, among others, is serving 15 years' imprisonment. I do not think that any society has a right to be complacent when that sort of anomaly arises.
We are never told by those who defend the supergrass system about the periods of remand. If we take 18 months as the average period spent on remand by an accused, we are talking about 1,050 years having been spent on remand before a judge has donned his wig or before a trial has begun. These are grotesque figures which must be challenged, and challenged in the only place where it is worth while to do so—on the Floor of the House.
There are many reasons why I must challenge the supergrass system. The first is that the evidence is dangerous. Judges challenge and make comments about the supergrasses, the accomplices, and we must appreciate the way in which ordinary people regard the system. In the Black case, for example, the accused were sentenced to 4,000 years' imprisonment, five of them receiving life sentences. The judge described the supergrass in that case as
an active and wholehearted member of the IRA—up to his neck in terrorist activity and a dangerous and ruthless criminal.


Yet sentences of 4,000 years' imprisonment were imposed on his word.
The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland described the evidence of another supergrass and said that it would be
a perversion of justice according to law, so contradictory, bizarre and in some respects incredible was McGrady's evidence and so devious and deliberately evasive was his manner of giving it.
That is the way in which he described him, yet he proceeded, on his evidence, to sentence three people to long prison sentences.
In the latest example—the Kirkpatrick supergrass trial — the judge described the witness as being very often mistaken and unreliable. He said that his evidence was "hard to reconcile" and sometimes deliberately false. What did he do? Twenty-seven people were convicted on that evidence, and they are still in prison.
The performance of some of the supergrasses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has confirmed, is less than impressive. They are criminals and in many instances they have demanded and obtained immunity, which is astounding. The core of the issue, however, is that in the north of Ireland, because of a decision of this Parliament, there is an abnormal judicial system. There is no jury. Only one person makes the decision. I ask one simple question: If a prosecution has to convince 12 people in one jurisdiction and only one man in another, in which place would the average man wish to have his trial held? In which place would we all prefer to be tried if that were the choice facing us? These questions put the issue into perspective because in reality the problem will never be overcome while we put such a tremendous charge on a judge, who has to warn himself that it is dangerous to convict on uncorroborated evidence. These mental gymnastics should not be the basis of law.
Immunity is something which worries many people, and it has desperately worried those in Northern Ireland. Here, where these laws are made, it might be worth considering again the words of Chief Justice Hale in the 1600s, who said:
The truth is that more mischief hath come to good men by these kinds of approvement by the false declarations of villains, than benefits to the public by the discovery and conviction of real offenders.
That is something that we should remember when we give immunity to someone like Grimley, who was described by Mr. Justice Gibson as having
little or no regard for the truth
and who gave
evidence such that one could place no reliance on it.
At the end of the trial, however, Mr. Grimley went straight through the doorway of the court with immunity, and he is not the only person to have done it. To date 15 have been granted immunity, and we want it stopped.
This is not something which happens only occasionally in Northern Ireland for it is now a system. It is a system within a system. Much as it is denied and disputed, the fact remains that there must be political connivance, and judicial connivance at the highest level, to allow this abomination to continue. In the four years since the system began there have been 10 supergrass trials and over 700 have been charged with multiple offences on supergrass evidence. About 100 — they are all members of the nationalist community, by the way—are still in prison as a result of that evidence. We shall have to live with the consequences and we must examine the issue extremely carefully.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, of your concern about the time that is taken in debates such as this, so I shall conclude quickly. My Bill, which I hope to be able to bring to the Floor of the House, proposes quite simply
that an accused person in Northern Ireland shall not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice.
The Bill would define "corroboration" as independent admissible evidence which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the offence has been committed but that the accused person committed it. If the only evidence against an accused is that of a supergrass and no corroborative evidence can be found in the strict sense of the term, the accused should be acquitted. Natural justice requires that the guilt of an accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. When we are dealing with witnesses that are as notoriously unreliable as supergrasses, it is clear that we must adhere to that criterion.
I leave the final word with Lord Gifford, who produced a remarkably clear analysis of the problem. The message of Lord Gifford that I would like to leave with the House is this:
Parliament has legislated for an exceptional form of trial procedure in Northern Ireland, dispensing with the most important protection for the innocent in our judicial system. Parliament should also legislate to provide safeguards for the Diplock system, by a simple measure which provides that in a Diplock court there must as a matter of law be corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Dennis Canavan, Ms. Clare Short and Mr. David Alton.

ACCOMPLICE EVIDENCE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Seamus Mallon accordingly presented a Bill to provide with certain exceptions for a mandatory requirement that an accused person in Northern Ireland shall not be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 July and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Opposition Day

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Economic Policies and Unemployment

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I must also tell the House that many hon. Gentlemen wish to take part in the debate, and I appeal for brief contributions.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That this House strongly condemns this Government's economic policies which have led to the highest ever level of unemployment.
Almost exactly three years ago today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast the date on which unemployment would start to fall. At a Conservative party election press conference, he said that the reduction would begin in early 1984. His forecast that the reduction would begin in the early days of that year was qualified by only one reservation: the estimate was, he said, his own. He added:
Take it or leave it for what it is worth.
Today we know exactly the value of the Chancellor's judgment. We know exactly what that was worth. Far from falling, unemployment has remorselessly increased. It has increased by 300,000 since the Chancellor predicted his reduction, by 200,000 since the date when the reduction was supposed to begin and by 2 million since the Government were elected in 1979. I ought to make it clear that the figure of 2 million is the record according to the Government's massaged figures. On the honest calculations, the seven-year increase since 1979 is 2·5 million.
Day after day the bad news grows. There is bad news for tin miners on Monday and for shipyard workers on Tuesday. The numbers of redundancies pile up day after day. Under the Government, unemployment has risen to higher levels than ever. Unemployment here is now worse than in Germany, France, America, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Switzerland, Australia and many other countries. Seven years ago we were told that the effects of the international recession would be the same for those countries as it would be here.
The excuse that we suffer as the rest of the world suffers is patently false. So is the absurd notion, which no doubt we shall hear from the Chancellor this afternoon, that were we to improve employment, we would have to sacrifice improved inflation. That is no more sensible that to say that we should or could bring unemployment down by allowing inflation to rise. The two factors essentially have to go hand in hand.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I will not give way. The debate began very late. It is a brief debate and I shall obey Mr. Speaker's injunction.
The disgrace that we are debating today is not just the tragedy of the past seven years. We are discussing a continuation of the catastrophe. We are discussing it

because the Government have no strategy for the reduce ion of unemployment and, I fear, precious little concern for the unemployed.
Budget after Budget, all we receive are diversions and distractions—profit sharing, job starts and job clubs. We receive nothing but gimmicks and exhortations to be patient, and the pretence that the Government are creating the conditions in which unemployment will naturally fall. We have heard that now for seven years. I must ask the Chancellor again the question which, on the record, he only answers at election time and then gets grotesquely wrong: when will a sustained reduction in unemployment begin?
The question is all the more relevant today in the light of the Chancellor's boast last week about the strength of the economy. If the economy is so strong, what is the Chancellor's excuse for saying that there is nothing that he can offer the unemployed? What sort of recovery is it that leaves almost 4 million men and women out of work? How long will they have to wait before they can enjoy some of the advantages that the Chancellor attempted to describe last week?
An answer of sorts was given last week by the Secretary of State for Employment acting in his capacity as Minister for Irrelevant Gimmicks. The noble Lord is clearly destined to play a crucial part in the future of the Government. He is to occupy the role so recently vacated by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). He is to be the court jester. He will be what in King Lear was called the Fool but he will be the Fool in reverse. He will be the man who dresses up nonsense and pretends that it is wisdom. The noble Lord's speech last week was an example of that. Had I not seen that speech reported in every reputable newspaper I would not have believed that it had been made by a member of a responsible Administration. Seven years after the Government were elected, the Secretary of State for Employment announced how he would change the prospects for the unemployed. He said that he would organise a profound change in British culture.
We will recognise the new renaissance when it comes—this profound change in culture—because there will be a relaxation of hire car regulations and an abolition of licences for anti-shop lifting devices. In the new Conservative Camelot, private nursing homes will no longer be licensed. That is a strange industry around which to build our economic regeneration. However, this new unregulated Eldorado is not an immediate prospect. The Secretary of State for Employment is issuing a consultative statement and that will be followed by a definitive White Paper. When all that happens, the absence of regulations will slowly create the conditions in which job growth will begin.
If the noble Lord's ideas were simply silly, neither they nor he would matter, nor would they need to detain us now. However, some of the ideas related to reducing unemployment are positively pernicious. It is pernicious to restrict the rights to maternity benefit. It is pernicious to limit the right to appeal against unfair dismissal. And it is especially pernicious to pretend that the unemployment figures can be reduced by penalising those already in work.
Unemployment has not risen during the past seven years because of regulations within the economy or restrictions within the labour market. It has risen because of the Government's policy. Seven years ago we were told


that reductions in Government borrowing and cuts in public spending, a tight grip on the money supply and the consequent high interest rates and over-valued sterling would create the conditions in which employment would increase and unemployment would fall. In both particulars exactly the opposite has happened.
Despite the bogus claims about job creation, the counting of part-time jobs as if they were full-time, the intentional over-estimation of the number of people in self-employment, the truth is not in doubt. The Bank of England states that the real record of job creation between June 1983 and June 1985 is the equivalent of 24,000 employees in full time jobs, not the 250,000 which the Government fraudulently calculated. The Government's figure was almost 10 times greater than the real figure.
The Government's claims grow more bizarre day by day. This morning on the radio in one of those performances which lose his party so many votes, in one of the performances against which the Leader of the House and the Home Secretary have warned him, the chairman of the Conservative party claimed that the Government had created 1 million jobs since 1983. I must tell the Chancellor that I cannot imagine anybody buying a second hand political party from that man.
The truth is that even on the Government's own figures we have lost 1 million jobs since 1979. The Chancellor shakes his head but I have no doubt that one of the civil servants in the Box will provide him with the proper abstract of statistics. On the OECD figures, to which the Government contribute, it is clear that we have lost more jobs since 1979 than all the rest of the EEC put together. We have lost them largely because of Government policy — interest rates higher than the rest of Europe, an exchange rate which subsidises imports and penalises exports, and the Government's short-sighted refusal to invest resources in jobs and people.
One of the reasons given by the Government for ever-rising unemployment is earnings increases which outstrip inflation. I dare say that we shall hear something about that this afternoon. However, when it is convenient—for example, in party political broadcasts—the Government boast about earnings increases which outstrip inflation. So I ask the Chancellor again a question which he has failed to answer before and which the Chief Secretary has similarly failed to answer: Are the Government pleased or sorry that wage increases have bounded away over the past two years in the way that the figures demonstrate?

Mr. Timothy Wood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No. I have made it clear that I think it right to make my speech as quickly as possible and allow other hon. Members to do the same. I am doing the hon. Gentleman a favour because I am helping him to catch Mr. Speaker's eye as the afternoon wears on. The Chancellor's Parliamentary Private Secretary is saying something, but whether it is to me or to the Chancellor, I am not clear.
It was the people who received those extra wage increases of whom I assume the Secretary of State for Employment was speaking when he said last week
We have never had it so good for the 87 per cent. who are in work.
That comment combines ignorance, callousness, cynicism and stupidity in equal measure.
First, that comment is ignorant because it is statistically untrue. The lowest paid 10 per cent. of men and women in work are worse off than they were seven years ago. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that since the cost of living rises at a different speed and in a different way for pensioners and the other recipients of benefit, any benefit scheme which has increased only according to the official RPI results in the pensioners and the other recipients of benefit being worse off than they were seven years ago. Gallup tells us that over the past seven years 30 per cent. of the population has been directly affected by unemployment. All those people are worse off materially than they were seven years ago.
But the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment is wrong and ignorant in particular because it disregards the millions of families who are worse off because of the deterioration in the services on which their comfort and security depends. Perhaps more important, the noble Lord's statement was callous because it urged the prosperous to forget the disadvantaged. It was cynical because it hoped to construct a party political majority of the selfish and the uncaring.
Most important of all, and the point that I want to make to some extent, was that the idea that the 87 per cent.—a figure conjured out of statistical ignorance by the Secretary of State—had never had it so good was stupid because it did not recognise, and he did not understand, that even the prosperous cannot enjoy the full fruits of their prosperity in a society which is cruelly divided between employed and unemployed, between rich and poor, because most of the families who are still in work, even the families which have not been touched by unemployment over the past seven years, rely on public services for their health care and for the education of their children.
The families still in work, to whom the Secretary of State for Employment was presumably referring, are concerned about the physical conditions of their environment. All of them know that the National Health Service, the education service and the environment have deteriorated over the past seven years and they know that unless we begin to spend money on rebuilding dilapidated Britain now, in five, 10 or 20 years the nation will not be able to afford the cost of escalating deprivation. [Interruption.] If hon. Members believe that that is not true, they do not inhabit the real world of Britain since 1979 where schools and hospitals are in physical decay and where even according to the Government's National Economic Development Office the decay now runs at such a rate that, unless we try to arrest it soon, there will be no hope of rebuilding Britain into a decently equipped society.
What is more, the people who suffer from the lack of services, the people who want to see the building programmes and the environment improved with new schools and hospitals, know that by putting the unemployed back to work their public services and environment could be improved.
Men and women in secure employment know that a society that accepts permanent unemployment breeds despair, and they know, too, that that society which breeds despair breeds crime. The claim that they have never had it so good rings very hollow indeed to those families who have seen violent crime rise by 40 per cent., burglaries by 54 per cent. and vandalism and criminal damage by 76 per cent. All those deteriorations in law and order have come


about since the Government were elected and since unemployment escalated and brought with it the despair that brings violence. That is why a concentrated campaign to put Britain back to work is not just the compassionate option; it is the sensible option. It is the option dictated by the self-interest of us all, for it is to the direct material advantage of men and women now at work; men and women who want and need better housing, roads, hospitals and transport. The truth — I repeat it again — is that without adequate public services it is impossible for most families fully to enjoy their private earnings.
I give a fashionable example. It is an example so fashionable that it appeals to the new Secretary of State for Education and Science—the concern about litter, which I recognise, and I am glad to see that he has recognised, as something which affects Britain. I tell the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) who has inherited his initiative that litter in Britain will not be cleared by Mr. Richard Branson. It might be cleared if unemployed youths no longer stood on street corners in all our cities, and it might he cleared if councillors were allowed to finance adequate street cleaning. It might be cleared if the Government had the sense to realise that it is absurd to spend £6,000 a year on keeping a man or woman out of work when there are urgent tasks for those men and women to do.

Mr. Ralph Howell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No, I have made it clear that I shall press on, and that will allow the hon. Gentleman to speak if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
The position is clear. The Chancellor talks persistently, and will no doubt do so this afternoon, as if unemployment costs Britain nothing and as if putting Britain back to work is the expensive option. In fact, unemployment costs Britain £20 billion a year in benefits paid and taxes forgone. Unemployment costs Britain another £30 billion a year in lost production. It is simple lunacy, no less for those in work than for those who are unemployed, to allow money to be wasted and to allow the waste to continue when the money now spent on unemployment and the workers could combine to build a better Britain.
I ask the Chancellor a simple question and I shall keep on asking it until he has the courtesy to answer. I know graciousness is not a characteristic that is most noticeable — [Interruption.] Somebody from the Front Bench shouted, "It takes one to know one." We do need to improve the education system, do we not? How does the Chancellor justify a policy which leaves Britain short of houses, hospitals and schools and at the same time keeps 400,000 construction workers on the dole? It does not make sense because those people could be put back to work, thus reducing unemployment and making an important contribution to the quality of life and the prosperity of Britain.
Putting Britain back to work is an urgent necessity for all our people, employed and unemployed alike. Reducing unemployment, initially by about 1 million in two years, is the policy to which the next Labour Government will give overall priority. It is a policy to which everything else must take second place. To achieve that aim — and achieve it we shall—we will specify firm targets for

borrowing and spending and will make sure that spending remains within those targets and is concentrated on job creation.
The Prime Minister spoke movingly to one of her Back Benchers today and said she was always prepared to listen to suggestions for extra expenditure if they were matched by ideas about where the money could come from. Let me give her one suggestion. It is right economically, socially and morally to use available resources for investment in public sector capital to reduce unemployment rather than use them to reduce the standard rate of income tax to 25p. It may not appeal to those small groups of cynics and self-interested people whom the Secretary of State for Employment tells us have never had it so good. Those are the people who have already enjoyed the tax cuts from Government. What I have suggested is right for Britain and it is what most of our people want.
To achieve the reduction in unemployment that we intend I concede at once that the next Labour Government will have to postpone some policies which are desirable and necessary in themselves. I say and I shall continue to say that it is our overwhelming intention to make every other objective secondary to a reduction in unemployment. If resources are concentrated on that overwhelming necessity, it will be possible to begin putting Britain back to work. We shall begin to put Britain back to work. That is what our people want and that is what the Labour Government will do.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on the success of its economic policies in securing the lowest rate of inflation for over 18 years and steadily rising employment.'
The House is united in its concern to see an end to the prolonged rise in unemployment and a steady reduction in the numbers out of work. What divides us is how that can be achieved. This debate is taking place on what is virtually the third anniversary of the general election of 1983, and I am delighted that the Opposition wish to commemorate that historic event. It is worth recalling what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) had to say in the moment of truth in the aftermath of that massive defeat for his party. He said:
Our economic policy—the promise to put Britain back to work—was a net vote loser. Our vague hopes of achieving growth through Government spending were barely understood and rarely believed".
Three years later the right hon. Gentleman is again peddling the same economic panaceas that were so rightly rejected in 1983. A massive increase in public expenditure—no less than an extra £24 billion, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said — is once again paraded as the answer to unemployment. It was wrong when it was put into practice in 1974, it was wrong when it was so decisively rejected by the British people in 1983, and it is wrong today. The only consequence of a policy of massive spending by a Labour Government would be a massive increase in public borrowing, a massive increase in taxation and a massive increase in inflation, leading to financial collapse and the inevitable recourse to the International Monetary Fund.
The right hon. Gentleman is right about one thing. The solution to unemployment must lie in large measure in enabling the economy to generate faster growth for a


sustained period. Whatever the arguments for higher public expenditure, the creation of a more efficient and more competitive economy is not one of them. Indeed, if anything the reverse is the case. It is no coincidence that the two most successful economies in the world, those of the United States and of Japan, have a markedly lower level of public expenditure and taxation in relation to their gross domestic product than we have in this country.
There is no pseudo-Keynesian short cut to a better performing economy. It requires entrepreneurs prepared to seize opportunities and take risks, high quality management, with a firm grip on costs, and high quality investment—not least in research and development. It requires a well-trained and well-motivated work force and a market economy free of unnecessary interference and restrictions of all kinds. Starting from where we were in the United Kingdom after years, indeed decades, of movement away from the market economy, it is inevitably a long and slow process, but let there be no doubt about the progress that we have already made.
In the latter part of his speech the right hon. Gentleman made a number of somewhat selective statistical comparisons between now and 1979. We all remember, especially those of us on the Government side, the critical situation that the Government inherited in 1979, the aftermath of the winter of discontent. There was rampant inflation, public expenditure out of control, widespread and unsustainable overmanning in most of British industry, grossly excessive public sector borrowing and untrammelled trade union power, and business morale was at rock bottom. I have no wish to look back to that, though perhaps the public do need to be reminded from time to time.
The British people delivered their verdict on the first four years of this Government, and they did so in no uncertain manner, in June 1983. That argument is now over, and in the most decisive way it could be.
There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman or the Opposition trying to have a replay of the 1983 general election. The question now is what has happened since June 1983. Since then our economy has been growing at 3 per cent. a year, the fastest rate of growth in the European Community. By June 1983 inflation had already fallen to its lowest level since the 1960s, and has now fallen still further to 3 per cent. Despite what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, the number of jobs has risen by almost a million, industrial investment is up by 32 per cent., manufacturing productivity is up by 8½ per cent., manufacturing exports are up by 19 per cent., and manufacturing investment is up by 31 per cent.
Moreover, all this has been achieved despite the twin traumas of a year-long coal strike and an oil price that has fallen from $30 a barrel in June 1983 to less than $13 a barrel today — two storms that we have successfully weathered in a way that would simply not have been possible had we taken the advice of our critics and abandoned the prudent economic policy we have been consistently pursuing and will continue to pursue.
Indeed, figures published today show that since the turn of the year, while the oil price has tumbled, our foreign exchange reserves have actually risen by very nearly $1 billion. In all this progress the achievement of low inflation has been the cornerstone. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was bold enough to say, a little

over a year ago, that she could foresee inflation down to 3 per cent. by the end of this Parliament, this was widely derided as an impossible dream, yet it is now a fact, well ahead of schedule, with the prospect of continued low inflation in the months and years ahead.
Of course, inflation has come down virtually worldwide — not surprisingly, since all the major economies have been pursuing much the same anti-inflation policies as ourselves. It is only the Opposition who are out of step—still trapped in the malign time-warp of the 1970s.
The fall in inflation has been considerably greater here than in most other countries. During the last Labour Government, when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister with responsibility for prices, inflation in the United Kingdom was 5½ per cent. more than the average of the European Community as a whole. Today our rate of inflation is, if anything, below the European Community average.
It is, of course, perfectly true that over the past six months or so there has been something of a pause in worldwide economic growth. In Germany, as well as in Britain, industrial production has been pretty flat, while in both France and Japan it has actually fallen. Even in the United States the rise during that period has been very modest. But this is no cause for alarm. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development put it in its economic outlook that was published last week:
Economic conditions in the OECD area have changed to an unusual degree over the past six months or so, and very largely for the better … These developments have significantly improved the near-term prospects for OECD inflation and growth.
What seems to be happening is in a sense the mirror image of what happened during the two great oil price hikes of 1973 and 1979, when there was a delay of several months before output was decisively affected. Not surprisingly, oil producers tend perforce to be prompter in cutting back their spending than oil consumers are in increasing theirs, and the initial effect of the industrialised world of higher disposable incomes as inflation comes down tends to be on saving rather than on spending.
I would still expect the gains to the United Kingdom from lower oil prices, in terms of economic activity, and therefore employment, to exceed the losses over the months ahead, and for world growth to resume as vigorously as ever, so this is no time for a change of policy, least of all for a massive increase in public expenditure, as the Opposition parties advocate.
If increased public expenditure were the remedy for our ills, then indeed the voters might be tempted to support those who have always maintained this to be so, but it is not so, as bitter experience should have taught us. Of course, we need to have a keen sense of priorities within public expenditure, and we also need to find ways of securing better—much better—value for money for the vast sums that national and local government spend.
Take education, for example, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, and about which there is widespread and understandable concern. The latest available figures show that the taxpayer and the ratepayer in this country spend roughly the same per pupil in school as Germany does, some 20 per cent. more than Japan does and as much as 50 per cent. more than France. Yet this is manifestly not reflected in what parents rightly care about: standards and values and the child's preparation for the


real world of tomorrow. These are the problems that we have to grapple with. At the same time, we need to continue the process of reducing the burden of taxation, not as a social service but as both a moral duty and as an essential means of improving our national economic performance.
A new study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that since we have been in office we have lightened the burden of taxation on those both at the top of the income scale, where tax rates approached the point of confiscation, and at the bottom of the income scale, where the hardship was greatest. But ordinary people, on middle incomes still pay, altogether, 38 per cent. of every extra pound that they earn. That is too much.
Let no one take tax cuts for granted. If we fail to control public expenditure, it will not be a question of how much the burden of taxation on ordinary families can be reduced; it will be a question of how much it has to go up, and if the right hon. Gentleman were ever to resume office it would go up massively, for the idea that Labour's programme could be paid for simply by taxing the so-called rich is manifest nonsense. The sums simply do not add up.
As the Engineering Employers Federation has recently pointed out, this is a moment of opportunity for British industry. Inflation has come down sharply, as have, even more sharply. industry's non-pay costs. Interest rates, both short term and long term, are some 2½ points lower than they were a year ago and the pattern of exchange rates is also considerably more favourable than it was a year ago.
World markets are about to expand again as the benefits of the oil price fall flow through. Whether that opportunity is successfully grasped, or largely dissipated, will depend on management's determination to control its unit labour costs, the Achilles heel of the British economy.
There is a further bonus to British industry from greater success on this front, where so far we have been doing conspicuously less well than our principal competitors, at the expense of jobs in particular, for a marked improvement in the trend of British unit labour costs would do more than anything else to improve sentiment in the financial markets, thus facilitating further reductions in interest rates. It was above all in this context, the context of our rigid and malfunctioning labour market, with its damaging consequences for jobs, that I put forward in the Budget my proposal for a possible tax incentive for a switch to profit-related pay, on which I am now engaged in consultation with industry.
The purpose of encouraging workers to have part of their remuneration directly linked to profits is twofold. The first purpose is to create a greater sense of identity of interest between the employee and the firm in which he works. It has been a constant refrain of Government policies ever since we took office—particularly through the steps that we have taken to encourage wider share ownership, in particular employee share ownership—to narrow the gap between "them" and "us" in British industry.
The second purpose of my Budget and subsequent proposals is to enable there to be a greater degree of flexibility in overall pay so that the strain of hardship and difficulties in any particular market for any particular company falls not only on the numbers of workers employed, but on the level of pay. I am pleased with the widespread welcome that the concept has received in principle, and of course I shall take fully into account

points made by industry during the consultation process. A more detailed consultative paper will be published next month.
I say to those who have commented on the proposal so far that the quest for perfection is the bugbear of improvement, and anyone who fails to see that some improvement in the nature of wage bargaining is possible is living in an unreal world. Our proposal would lead to a much better position for companies, their work forces and, above all, for the unemployed.
Characteristically, the right hon. Gentleman has waded in, with all the delicacy and sensitivity of a hippopotamus, seeking to rubbish the concept. According to today's newspapers, he believes that it would imply employees shouldering too much financial risk. For heaven's sake, which world is the right hon. Gentleman living in? Does he imagine that there is no risk in the world? Is he aware that the fact that we are debating the motion is a reflection that people's livelihoods are at risk?
It is far better when a company is having a difficult time that some of the risk should be that of losing an element of the profit-related pay than a risk of losing jobs, with a corresponding benefit when the company is doing better. It is better, too, that companies should be encouraged to take on more people. To say that we are living in a world of no risk is a fantasy that only the right hon. Gentleman could perpetuate.

Mr. Hattersley: I notice that the Chancellor is on the last half page of his speech. Does he propose to deal with unemployment, or, having deceived the country three years ago, does he not have the courage to tell the truth this afternoon?

Mr. Lawson: My entire speech has been about the root causes of unemployment, instead of the bogus panacea of more public expenditure, more deficits and more inflation which the right hon. Gentleman believes will lead to more jobs. It is clear that the Opposition are as hostile to new thinking as they are envious of success, whether it is individual or national success. They cling to the policies of the 1970s as the drug addict clings to his addiction, and the remedy that they ultimately peddle is as illusory as the drug addict's, and every bit as dangerous.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: The drubbing that the Government received at Ryedale and West Derbyshire and in the local council polls has not only cut by half the Chancellor's usual eloquence, but has led to Ministers consoling themselves that the private sector is, mercifully for them, ignoring their repeated sermons against increasing unit labour costs. A substantial number of people are still in work with substantial pay packets. It was summed up for them by the Secretary of State for Employment when he said recently,
The country has never had as good a time as it has today.
That remark blatantly ignored not only the fact that there are 1 million fewer jobs than there were in 1979 but the real—in many constituencies, obvious—concern and sense of deprivation even among those with substantial pay packets. Not only do they have in their families or in the same street people who are out of work or on a temporary scheme which will soon come to an end, but they are aware that being employed by a large, prestigious company is no guarantee against a redundancy notice coming out of the blue.
In recent weeks, firms with the highest reputation and good management have declared substantial redundancies and the trend is far from exhausted. Those redundancies were not predicted. Many of them have taken the commentators as well as the workers by surprise and have struck terror into the hearts of many people who thought that they at least had secure jobs.
Worst of all for the fairly well-paid is the cruel paradox that they can now afford to take their children on a foreign family holiday, but are unable to secure for those youngsters the adequate schooling to which they attach infinitely more importance. Well-paid workers with aged parents who can provide the old lady with a stylish winter coat cannot get that old lady a hip replacement in a reasonable time to save her much pain and dangerous immobility. All this is happening under the eyes of frustrated people, who know that there are vast human resources made idle by the Government's policies. People who could ensure better public services are forbidden to do so. Often at the workplace, when a worker is considering a possible opening for his child who is approaching school or college leaving age, he sees a dearth of private sector investment, which is all set this year to record a very low rate of growth, and probably an even lower rate next year due to the hamfisted combination by the Chancellor of simultaneously abolishing all the investment allowances for new plant and equipment while real interest rates are so high as to be an additional discouragement to the private sector to invest.
The dismal story of public sector investment is all too well known. Not only since this Government came to office in 1979, but since 1970 under Governments of both parties, our rate of public capital investment has fallen sharply, nowhere more heavily than in construction.

Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting, but fairly repetitive. We have heard much of this before. What level of public spending and borrowing would he accept, how would he finance the public borrowing, and would he accept an increase in inflation? Having reached those conclusions, would he say whether he is supported in those views by the economic spokesman for the SDP, who is not present?

Mr. Wainwright: I regret that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman showed a notable lack of patience in realising that analysis must precede prescription. I shall come to that point.
In recent years, expenditure on construction work has been only about one third that of Japan, about one third that of West Germany, 37 per cent. of that of France and 51 per cent. that of Italy. The idea that we are worsted in competition with our trade rivals because we spend far too much on personal comforts and personal housing is a complete chimera. The opposite is the case. The Government show no sign of realising the need to step up construction for the purpose of taking people out of long-term unemployment and providing Britain with the public assets that it needs.
The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) was correct to say that we have all heard the dismal story before. We must continue to talk about it until it is reversed. It calls for a combined national assault on unemployment under sincere national leadership involving the trade unions, the employers and central and local

government in a willingness to accept the necessary disciplines—disciplines of which we heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who opened for the Labour segment of the Opposition. It means that all these bodies will have to accept the disciplines necessary for expansion without inflation to which, indeed, the alliance parties are pledged. The various privileges in law and by custom that are enjoyed by the separate sectors will have to be moderated and controlled if we are to make a successful national assault on unemployment in order to have a substantial effect on the figures. To ask the present Government under the present Prime Minister to embark upon a huge enterprise of that kind is as realistic as asking a giraffe to swim the Channel. It is no good wasting breath in the House trying to get that sort of reversal.
With this Parliament only three years old, realism demands, unfortunately, that the Opposition have to look at much more modest proposals in the hope—and hope springs eternal in my breast—that Government Back Benchers of experience, and some of great seniority, will prevail on their colleagues in Government to introduce some proposals, with a modest start no doubt and with pilot schemes—there is quite a lot to be said for pilot schemes — to begin to have an effect on the unemployment figures.
In that connection, I wish briefly to refer to the proposals of the Select Committee on Employment published at the end of January, nem. con. at least among Committee members, with the Committee very properly, of course, having a majority of Conservative MPs. The Committee was dealing, in my view quite rightly, with the special problems of the growing number of long-term unemployed, especially those unemployed for more than 12 months. It took account of the fact that somebody made unemployed today has a 40 per cent. chance in the ensuing three months of getting another job. Somebody who has already been unemployed for 12 months has on past history a 22 per cent. chance only of getting another job. After two years' unemployment that probability has dropped to a mere 6 per cent.
Furthermore, the Committee, I think, was shrewd in selecting this distressing category of the unemployed because most of them in effect have been compelled by force of circumstance to withdraw from the labour market. Therefore, getting them re-employed runs very little risk of stoking up wage growth about which the Government take no action but continually show great anxiety. This is, therefore, a valuable sector of the unemployed on which to concentrate attention.
There are Committee proposals for a building improvement scheme to provide some 300,000 extra jobs for the long-term unemployed, the Committee's proposal for 100,000 long-term unemployed to be used in the social services and the National Health Service and, most valuable of all—and the alliance has been propounding this for the last four years — the introduction of a subsidy to private employers to take on long-term unemployed in addition to their present labour force to an overall total of 350,000 additional jobs.
What is the Government's response to these relatively modest but carefully argued proposals from an all-party Committee? The Government certainly did not have in mind the very appropriate words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few moments ago when, so rightly, he reminded the House:


the quest for perfection is the bugbear of improvement".
Quite so, but in trying to rebut—I think vainly trying to rebut — the Select Committee's proposals the Government were all the time making comparisons against a backdrop of perfection. They were pointing out detailed difficulties, but ignored the fact that the Committee agreed that there must be pilot schemes. The Government ignored the fact that in every Government scheme there are manifold difficulties and anomalies, and it would be absurd to expect anything else. The main thrust and purpose can come through satisfactorily.
The fact was also paraded—and it is not something that I want to denigrate—that the Government are now offering interviews and serious and, no doubt, valuable counselling to all long-term unemployed. How much more effective this intensive counselling and attempt to give advice to the long-term unemployed would be if the Manpower Services Commission, which is doing that work, could point to real opportunities of genuine jobs for very large numbers of the long-term unemployed.
The Government in my view are overlooking the fact that a person who receives a lot of intensive counselling in a difficult part of his or her life and finds weeks afterwards that nothing had come of it is likely to be in a worse state than before he or she was called to interview. If the Government scheme for interviewing the long-term unemployed and giving them intensive counselling could be married up with the Select Committee proposals, or some version of them, it would indeed have some effect. All that would be a useful precursor to a new Government's much more massive assault on long-term unemployment using the undoubted credit of the British Government to extend the public sector borrowing requirement to bring it a little nearer the general level prevailing in the industrialised world, but in no way approaching the extravagant, astronomical figures put before the country by the Labour party at the last election.
Also—and this is where I can join forces with the Labour Front Bench spokesman——

Mr. John Prescott: Do not bother.

Mr. Wainwright: The Labour party spokesman on employment may want to eat those words after the general election result.
Some of the resources that the Government unhappily still declare they want to use for cuts in income tax would be better used to get the long-term unemployed back to work.
Finally, there is the question of timing. The Government have the responsibility of presiding over our affairs in those few years when there may still be time to make a real attack on the problem because, when the moment comes when in addition to the falling world oil price there is the marked falling off of British production, we are, alas, likely to be faced with the old balance of payments problem that some Members of the House, myself included, remember all too well. That, I admit, would inhibit massive attempts to tackle unemployment. There is, therefore, all the more need to start now.
If we go on with the present policies, which God forbid, there will come a time when the Government will find themselves boxed in. They will be subject to severe balance of payment constraints and to keep up the pound and to maintain some control over inflation we shall have to go through the whole wretched business of panic

expenditure cuts and a return to astronomical interest rates. Before we run unnecessarily into such a deplorable situation, the Government should start tackling unemployment and also bring about a selective and controlled reflation of the economy. Because the Labour Opposition on this occasion have been good enough to give us a simple, straightforward and direct motion of one sentence only, we shall be with them in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Ralph Howell: One wonders how the deputy Leader of the Opposition. the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), had the nerve to come to the House and trot out the same old rubbish that has failed the Opposition in the past and will fail them again. I am not over-pleased with what I have heard in the debate so far. We have heard from the Government, from the official Opposition and from one of the other two Socialist parties, but none of them has put forward any positive, original ideas for dealing with rising unemployment.
There is no conventional cure for unemployment. I beg the Government to take note of the proposals that I shall put forward yet again. For some years I have been trying to persuade the Government to substitute work-fare for welfare. It is a system that has been used in the United States for a number of years and will soon be universal in all states. By this method they are able to keep unemployment at a lower level than the level in this country.
The Opposition suggest more spending, the Liberal party suggests more spending, and so do some members of the Conservative party. That is unacceptable, bearing in mind the appalling taxation which bears more heavily on the low paid than on any other section of the community. There is no room for increased taxation. We must find a way of reducing unemployment and reducing taxation at the same time.
The scheme that I shall put forward could lead to a tax cut of £10 billion. I urge the Government to set up a pilot work-fare scheme. By work-fare, I mean that work should be offered to all people without a normal job at £2 or even £2·50 an hour, so that those who availed themselves of the scheme could earn £100 a week, or £5,000 a year. If all the unemployed turned up at work centres to do the work that was provided, as Beveridge intended, the cost would be £16·5 billion a year. It is said that currently we are spending £20 billion in support for the unemployed plus regional aid schemes, aid to industry and all the training and start-up schemes which are aimed at reducing unemployment.
If we were to offer work, I do not think that 3·3 million would turn up to do it. The schemes which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Employment has introduced over the last few months have proved that. Many people are so busy in the black economy that they would not have time to turn up at work centres. So I would be surprised if more than 1 million took advantage of the scheme.
Let us assume, as a conservative estimate, that half of the unemployed actually took up this work. If 1·5 million came along, that would cost about £9 billion. That would mean that there could be a large tax cut to remove the weight of taxation from the lower paid. Every penny that was saved could be used to raise tax thresholds se that the taxation of the low paid and pensioners who are living on modest incomes of less than £100 a week would cease.
If such a scheme were put into operation, we would have established the right to work and no one need be afraid of being unemployed ever again. Of course, the scheme could not be successful in five minutes. The Government might start by offering work to those who had been unemployed for more than two years. When they had been absorbed into the work-fare system, work could be offered to those who had been unemployed for one and a half years. Gradually we would get to the point where anyone who had been unemployed for more than six months would automatically be offered work but no social security benefit. That is a crucial point.
I want to draw attention to three side effects of the proposal. The Prime Minister has recently visited Israel, where she was impressed by the cleanliness she saw there. As a result, Mr. Richard Branson is likely to put 5,000 people to work on clearing litter. Why not link that to a nationwide work-fare scheme? Within a year we could have a tidy Britain. Secondly, there is the question of the hippy convoy. Those people might not present a problem if there was a work-fare scheme.
The third side effect relates to foreign visitors who are told that all they have to do to get social security is to book into a hotel and then report to the local DHSS office, saying that they have no money to pay the bills. We are told that automatically the DHSS shells out about £78 a week to such visitors. That would stop because we would not be offering benefits, only work.
I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade the Prime Minister to institute a pilot work-fare scheme. I should be happy to have such a scheme in my constituency. The result might be the same as with the nine pilot schemes set up by the Secretary of State for Employment when letters were sent to various people who had been unemployed for more than two years. We might find that the problem was not as big as we thought it was. If the work-fare scheme was successful, there could be a very large tax cut into the bargain.

Mr. Jack Dormand: By any criteria the Chancellor's speech was deeply disappointing. As unemployment continues to rise, his speeches become more and more complacent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was justified in intervening towards the end of his speech to ask when he intended to talk about unemployment. That was the great omission from the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
The question that the Government have consistently refused to answer is when we can expect unemployment to come down. In the early years of their period of office it was legitimate for the Government to ask us to give their policies a chance to work, but that is not legitimate after seven years of unrestrained power. The Government made much of Labour's record on unemployment when in office. They have referred constantly to the fact that when we left office 1·3 million people were out of work. Seven years on, the official total is 3·4 million, and the actual figure is nearer 4 million. It is particularly significant that there are now more long-term unemployed than the total unemployed when the Government took office.
The Government blame everyone but themselves for such a devastating situation. Of course, we are repeatedly

told that the economy is getting stronger every day. I want to ask the Paymaster General how they come to that conclusion. All the evidence suggests otherwise. I shall give three written examples. The figures produced by the Central Statistical Office only two weeks ago show that in the first quarter of this year the economy recorded its slowest underlying growth rate for four years. An underlying growth rate of 1·6 per cent., which is what it is, means that there is no prospect of substantial cuts in unemployment in the near future or in the medium term.
The figures issued by the Department of Trade and Industry, again only two weeks ago, tell the same gloomy story. Industrial investment, which is critical to the unemployment position, showed a fall of 1·7 per cent. in the first quarter of this year compared with the first quarter of 1985.
In its quarterly report the Association of British Chambers of Commerce says:
The prospects for employment remain dismal.
It says that a balance of only 11 per cent. of its companies, even fewer than at the end of 1985, are predicting an increase in their work forces. Therefore, where is the evidence for the Government's view? We certainly did not hear any from the Chancellor. Perhaps the Paymaster General will give some of the facts when he replies.
One thing is certain. Members of the Government do not have the faintest notion of what unemployment means to an individual. It means losing one's self-respect, a lack of confidence, deep worry for one's family, hopelessness, misery and, very often, sheer despair. On a personal note, I have been unemployed only once in my life, for the short time of four months. With that memory constantly in my mind, I think of the tragedy of those 4 million souls, some of whom have no prospect of being employed again.
The Prime Minister never ceases to tell us that the Government's policies are successful because of the reduction in the rate of inflation. Thousands of people, in the House and outside, have said that to get inflation down to 3 per cent. at a cost of 4 million unemployed is not only too big a price to pay but is a fundamental mistake of policy. I shall not argue the case concerning the fall in inflation, but, in spite of the Government's claim, it is clear that the present low level, particularly the recent fall, is largely a direct result of falling commodity prices helped by a pound which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, is stronger than is necessary.
In spite of what the Chancellor and some of his hon. Friends have said, nothing less than a fundamental change in policies is required if we are to stop the continuing rise in the number of people out of work. The Government's obsession with monetarism has done immense damage to the economy, not only by depressing demand but by making our industry uncompetitive. Their determination to keep the public sector borrowing requirement as low as possible has had the most dire consequences for output and employment.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Government are not altogether against job creation. This afternoon the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security announced 5,000 new jobs for local offices of the Department of Health and Social Security. About 800 of those jobs, some 16 per cent. of the total, are to come to Scotland. They are to deal with


the remorseless increase in the number of supplementary' benefit claimants and those claiming unemployment benefit.

Mr. Dormand: That is an interesting point, and I hope that my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in order to develop it.
The theory was — I hope that it is still not the position—that the private sector would take over the necessary economic action. It simply has not happened. There has been no sustained capital investment. The level of manufacturing investment is still 17 per cent. below what it was in 1979 when the Government came to office. I add my voice to the many who are advising caution on the Government who are presently placing so much importance on investment in the service industries. Certainly tourism and so on have a role to play, but to make the service industries our major sector would be dangerous and, in my view, a fundamental error of policy.
There must be a major increase in public sector investment if we are to have economic recovery and reduce the army of the unemployed. The Labour party has spelt it out many times, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said it today and we repeat with all the force at our command that there is a need for spending on schools, roads, hospitals and railways, to say nothing of the crisis in housing.
Last week I was re-reading the first book by my distinguished predecessor in the House, Manny Shinwell, to whom the nation paid justifiable and proper tribute recently. He was writing about unemployment, which he called "The scourge of idleness". He was speaking of Glasgow where he lived for so many years when he wrote:
Think of the whole absurd situation. Thousands of men normally engaged in the building trades are almost permanently unemployed, yet there is a crying demand for houses for the people, an obligation of human decency to clear our great industrial cities of acres upon acres of insufferable, rat-warren slums.
That was written in 1943. Here we are 43 years later with 400,000 building workers unemployed and the same crying and desperate need for houses and all of the other projects which I and others have mentioned.
The region which has been hardest hit by the Government's policies is my own, the north. Apart from Northern Ireland, we continue to have the country's highest percentage of unemployment. One person in five is out of work, making 240,000 people. The recent decisions on shipbuilding, engineering and pit closures will considerably add to the devastation. One third of manufacturing industry in the north has disappeared in the past seven years.
Those of us who have the honour to represent the northern region have known for some time that we have a branch factory economy. That is confirmed in Newcastle university's recent regional development study, in which it says:
The north has one of the weakest indigenous manufacturing sectors of any region in the United Kingdom.
That requires the most urgent attention by the Government. It is an aspect of the north's problems which the newly formed Northern Development Company will be looking at. I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will be supporting the company. The Paymaster General probably knows that it was formed by the trade unions, the northern Confederation of British

Industry, local authorities and some individual companies. Such co-operation shows how widespread is the concern in the north.
For many years I have called for a northern development agency. The development company is the nearest thing we are likely to get to such an agency in present circumstances, and I welcome the fact that the present Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently met senior members of the company to discuss its role and its future. He and the Ministers present today should be under no illusion that if the chronic unemployment in the northern region is to be effectively tackled its resources ought to match those of the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency; nothing less than that will do the job. The help which the company is to receive will be a measure of the interest and support which the Government are likely to show for the north and its unemployment.
Draconian measures have been taken in the coal industry, on which the northern region has depended for many years. As an afterthought, in November, during the coal strike, the Government decided to establish NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. Its purpose is to create alternative employment in the mining areas now that the pits are being closed without any regard to the catastrophic social consequences. The impact of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. on the north, particularly on my constituency, has been negligible. We are told that more money is available if and when necessary, but the conditions imposed on applying for that help constitute a straitjacket. I hope that the Paymaster General will pay attention to that because it is important. The scheme is being referred to as the "last stop" because an applicant must first have applied and been refused by every other agency empowered to help.
Another important factor is that loans only can be made. Grants cannot be made, and partnership with local authorities is not permitted, despite the fact that many councils are doing fine work in that area. Partnership or co-operation with the NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. would be a big step forward.
Those are just three examples of the difficulties that beset the scheme. No wonder that some applicants describe it as an obstacle race. Its inanity is matched only by the Government's proposal to abolish the three new town corporations in the north-east. In 1985 Peterlee, in my constituency, brought in no fewer than 1,050 new jobs. and during the past six years it has brought 8,000 jobs to the area. The corporations are the only job-finding agencies that we have, yet the Government propose to abolish them. The Tory chairman of the Peterlee development corporation, who has done an excellent job, has been driven to criticise the Government publicly for that proposed act of vandalism.
I beg the Government to reconsider the future of the new town corporations. Their record in finding new jobs speaks for itself. If the Government persist with this doctrinaire attitude and in not recognising the facts of life, they will deal a serious blow to employment in the areas which the corporations serve.
I do not say that there are any easy solutions to the problem of unemployment. During the debate the Labour party has been criticised, but we are merely saying that in government we will reduce the number of unemployed by 1 million in two years. No one can say that that is other than a modest objective. It is realistic and the British people will realise that. The Government should be honest


with themselves and with the British people. They should say that their economic policies have failed, and recognise that the lives of millions of people have been ruined. Nothing less than a fundamental change in policy is necessary if the horror of mass unemployment is to be brought to an end.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: During the past seven years I have listened to a good many debates on this subject, and certainly the message from the Opposition does not change. They seem to be infected by amnesia about unemployment before 1979, including its existence. [Interruption.] They are long on lamentation, short on analysis and bereft of any constructive proposals other than the usual custard pie approach with the taxpayers' money. [Interruption.] I shall concentrate on one or two constructive points rather than bewail the position as the Opposition have again done.
There are understandable short-term political reasons for harping on the high number of unemployed, and 3·3 million is a large number. However, it seems extraordinary that we do not know who those people are and what they are doing. [Interruption.] If we want to help people we must find out exactly what they are doing. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has started work to find answers to some of those questions, and the job start programme which will carry that process forward. The Department of Employment says that just under 1 million of those people are not actively seeking work. If that is right, we should be sure of it and do more to direct and help people into work. It is not to the credit of either side of the House that we do not know the answers to some basic questions.
Observation of people in the south of England confirms an impression that some claimants are working the black economy—part of the best job start scheme there is. It is a sign of the civilised nature of our society that concern about the high level of unemployment is felt not only by people in the north where the problems are perhaps worse — [Interruption.] — but by people in areas which are least affected by unemployment. I have in mind the serious state of the tin mining industry in Cornwall. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends in government will realise that the international tin crisis——

Dr. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I am under such pressure of time that I am already cutting my speech short, and I do not wish to give way.
The international tin crisis will pass, and there will continue to be a market for Cornish tin in the years ahead. I hope that the Government will consider the problems of the Cornish tin industry in that light.
Unemployment has been branded evil and I have heard hon. Members describe it as obscene. Both the state of being unemployed and the threat of losing a job are dreadful, and are just as hard to bear for people in comfortable executive jobs as for those in manual work. But we should be wary of exaggerating the impact generally as we have the highest percentage of our work force in work compared with our European competitors.
What is so dangerous and socially explosive and corrosive is obvious to a visitor to our northern cities. It

is not the grinding mass poverty that we once saw and can still see in too many other countries. We can and generally do prevent that through our benefit system. But it is the other much more serious evil of inactivity—of having nothing to do. If we cannot engage the minds and bodies of our people, especially our young, and give them the opportunity to develop their talents, we can expect social, personal and national decline with much worse to follow. As the natural condition of man is to be active, so man's proper condition is to be engaged in constructive activity.
It follows from that that certainly employment but also training, providing it is constructive and has a job or wealth-creating activity in view, and education, even if it is only for leisure, should all be objectives for those of us who are anxious to alleviate unemployment and who are concerned about people who would otherwise be inactive. In other words, proper training and further education are worthwhile objectives, and not something to be sneered at as mere palliatives for unemployment. It follows that £2·5 billion of taxpayers' money spent on training is substantial evidence of a determination that this nation's talent should not be wasted.
There is plenty of evidence that good training leads to jobs. I shall look at one small programme which is doing that now. The Genesis programme within the training workshop resource unit of the Manpower Services Commission is engaged in training YTS trainees into jobs and is achieving considerable success. It has attracted the interest and support of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment. Would that it had attracted a bit more attention from other hon. Members. It provides enterprise training for young people by developing appropriate skills and attitudes. They are learning to create and use opportunities and are acquiring wealth-creating skills. They have the self-confidence to use them, to rely on their initiative and to take advantage of changing economic circumstances. The schemes are particularly important because they are operating precisely in the areas that are worst hit by the departure of older manufacturing businesses and where young people have, perhaps, least confidence that they have the remedies in their hands.
The Genesis programme, under its director, Mr. Timothy Finn, has been in existence for 15 months, and 21 YTS schemes have been involved with 120 young people engaged. Forty-five products have been identified for development, of which 32 have completed live market trials, and 20 have now entered their market place. Schemes are under way in Bristol, East Lothian, Livingston, Solihull, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Liverpool and Durham. Products and services include computers, knitwear, wooden games, road traffic signs, biorhythm charts, trees, wrought iron and clocks. To date, they have produced a revenue of about £401,000. The average revenue per participant on revenue-earning projects is running at an annual rate of over £5,000.
It is a small programme, but already its success is striking. I congratulate its director and the small team involved. Young people are being trained in enterprise. They are being trained into jobs. I urge the MSC, which has been slow in the past, and the Government to give the programme all possible support, both in its present and—if that is the way forward—future independent state. I should like to see the Genesis programme expanded until it is country-wide.
My right hon. and learned Friend, in his enthusiasm for new jobs, will undoubtedly be looking to the expansion of the private sector and moving away from Government-created short-term jobs. In his enthusiasm, I hope that he will not allow the environment, which is an irreplaceable asset of this country, to be over-developed. An understandable reluctance to permit the growth of new businesses in villages and towns, especially in rural areas, must be overcome. I accept that, as people in the south of England must do.
The wholesale conversion of the green fields of southern England into large housing estates or unwanted development is neither necessary nor desirable. Let us, correspondingly, do all we can to encourage development in those city centres and parts of the country which desperately want more development. If the price to be paid is that the south of England will, as a result, be less prosperous in cash than it otherwise would be, while northern cities are more prosperous, that is a price that we should gladly pay.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Prime Minister, Lord Young and the chairman of the Conservative party tell us constantly that it is business and industry which count. However, a number of recent takeover bids and the Government's merger policy suggest that the Government have anything but the interests of business and industry in mind. In a recent takeover hid, we witnessed power struggles which would make "Dallas" and "Dynasty" look like some form of social realism. Ministers, administrators and regulators have behaved badly as the business men themselves. We have seen activities that are an affront to popular capitalism, as perceived by Conservative Members, and an affront to the interests of consumers and workers, as perceived by Labour Members.
I shall examine one takeover bid, without taking sides, to show that a bizarre business culture is being created by the Conservative party. The takeover bid to which I shall refer—I have no interest in either side winning—is that of the purchase of the House of Fraser by the Al-Fayed brothers. For a long time, Lonrho was bidding for the firm. Its bid was held up by the Office of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and, eventually, the Department of Trade and Industry. In the space of 10 clays, to 14 March 1985, that famous company, the House of Fraser, which runs Harrods and 110 distinguished stores in the country, was handed over, with Government help, to three Arab brothers, the Al-Fayeds. A total of 30,000 British shareholders were wiped out at a stroke. A total of 55,000 Lonrho shareholders were kicked in the teeth. Lonrho, as a company, was turned over by the Government.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right.

Mr. Sedgemore: I can see that the cultural climate which the Government have created is causing a bit of aggravation.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Is the hon. Gentleman acting for Tiny Rowland?

Mr. Sedgemore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks me whether I am acting for Tiny Rowland.

If he casts his mind back 10 years, he will recall that there has been no bigger critic of Lonrho than myself. He will have witnessed an incident which involved Tiny Rowland and my wife. Let the hon. Gentleman not tell me that I am carrying a brief for Lonrho, but I am prepared to say that it has been turned over by the British Government. The story is quite fantastic. It involves an extraordinary business culture.
Over the past few weeks, Mr. Tiny Rowland has been sending four dozen yellow roses—an extraordinary act—to Mr. Hawkes, the chairman of Kleinwort, Benson, one of Britain's most distinguished merchant banks. He says that he has been sending the roses because Mr. Hawkes is a "yellow-belly". He says that Kleinwort, Benson has misled Sir Gordon Borrie, of the Office of Fair Trading, and the Department of Trade and Industry.

Mr. Robert Atkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this relevant to the motion under discussion?

Mr. Speaker: It is a preamble. I should not imagine that it will continue for much longer.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am referring to the Government's merger policy, which comes well within the debate. There will be pertinent questions to Ministers and Labour Members at the end. I will not be put off, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The motion relates to the Government's economic policies and the level of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman should speak on that subject, and to the amendment.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am talking about merger policies and business culture, which is an affront to the unemployed. I am making a contrast. I do not have to go down a narrow track on the basis of some kind of filibuster from the Government.

Mr. Conal Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given clear guidance that the hon. Gentleman must address his remarks to the motion and the amendment. The hon. Member has said that he wants to talk on merger policy, which is not the subject before the House. Therefore, I invite you to rule accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: I have already done so. The hon. Member, who is an experienced Member, must stick to the motion and the amendment. That is not too difficult.

Mr. Sedgemore: I am riot sticking to the motion and the amendment. I am asking how the Government's merger policy is helping the unemployed. It is setting an obscene example of the kind of business culture which the Government seek to create. I intend to talk about that. If you rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall sit down.
There is an astonishing tale in the incident. There has been inexplicable behaviour by the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry. A leading Conservative Back-Bencher and ex-chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Sir E. du Cann), has been locked in a bitter struggle with the Prime Minister, the Bank of England and the stock exchange, as evidenced by letters dated 19 March, 2 April and 17 May'. There have been allegations that the Prime Minister sought to prefer the bid of the Al-Fayed brothers in relation to some £5 billion which was allegedly deposited in this country during the financial crisis in early January last year. There have been allegations about the Prime


Minister's son and there has been extraordinary conduct on the part of a journalist. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to relate to the motion what the hon. Gentleman has just said. His remarks are wide of the motion. I ask him to stick to it.

Mr. Sedgemore: I shall speak about the Government's merger policy. If I cannot talk in an economic debate because I would embarrass the Prime Minister and Conservative Members——

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the point. The hon. Member knows that he must speak to the motion on the Order Paper. If he relates his remarks to unemployment — if he seeks to prove that mergers are helpful or unhelpful to unemployment—that is a different matter, but he must stick to the motion before the House.

Mr. Sedgemore: I wish to speak about the Government's merger policy and to make serious points which should be of interest to the House. I wish to talk about the business culture being created by the Government, which is damaging employment.

Sir Peter Tapsell: I was interested in the brief comments of the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), but as I do not feel that either Mr. Tiny Rowland or the Fayed brothers are in any great danger of becoming unemployed, I hope that I shall be allowed to return to the very important subject under debate.
I strongly believe that the present high level of unemployment is the gravest problem facing this country. The Government should give overriding priority to grappling with the serious social and economic problems that arise from it. If they are left unsolved for many more years, they will lead to such great social bitterness that it will take a generation to cure it. I am sure that the great majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends share my view about the seriousness of unemployment and my wish to reduce it as much as possible. Put at its lowest, we are all politicians who hope to be re-elected in about two years' time. It is not in any Conservative Member's interest to fight a general election at a time of high unemployment. We must take it for granted, therefore, that every Conservative Member is as convinced as I am that we must try to reduce the level of unemployment.
But I am worried that in the sympathetic rhetoric of Treasury Ministers there is an underlying sense of hopelessness. They seem to have a feeling they they are in the grip of forces over which they have little control. I do not believe that that is so. I believe that during the next few years we could make a significant reduction in the number of those unemployed without taking the sort of foolish action that would have a catastrophic effect on the Government's capacity to borrow, or that would plunge us back into double digit inflation, or something approaching it. Thus, I shall briefly challenge some of the statements that are perpetually made not only by Ministers but by distinguished commentators.
It would seem to me—and I have been making this speech both inside and outside the House for seven years now—that two mistakes have been made. For some

years there was an excessive belief in a Government's capacity to measure and control the money supply. Until only a short time ago, many distinguished people thought that, if the money supply could be controlled and reduced steadily year by year, many of our economic problems would be automatically solved. I always disputed that thesis, although I have always accepted that the money supply is an important factor in economic management. However, I always gave it much less emphasis than the Government did. When the medium-term financial strategy was published, it was quite unrealistic about the money supply.
The most comforting aspect of this debate is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a long and interesting speech without once mentioning the money supply. That is an advance. The fact that the money supply has risen by 16 per cent. in the past year, and is way outside all targets at a time when inflation has been falling nicely, speaks for itself. Broad money is now largely discredited as an accurate measure of what is happening in the economy, and no Government now think that they can effectively measure or control it.
In view of the passionate commitment of some of my right hon. Friends to the money supply theory a few years ago, one might think that they would at least have an open mind and a little modesty about some of their other economic dogmas. After all, it is just possible that they might be as mistaken about the overriding importance of the public sector borrowing requirement as events proved them to be about the money supply. It is all a matter of relativity. I am not suggesting that the PSBR or the budgetary deficit is an unimportant factor in the calculations of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. But from the recent local government elections and by-elections, and from conversations with our constituents, we know that there is now a realisation that we badly need an increase in capital investment. One needs only to look at our schools, hospitals and roads. One does not even have to call in aid the litter on the way to the centre of town from London airport. It is obvious to all that we badly need an increase in capital investment.
The recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools pointed out that the state of our schools has deteriorated greatly since 1981, and that if it is allowed to deteriorate further the cost of putting those schools into effective order will be prohibitive. The longer we delay a capital investment programme for our schools, housing and so on, the more expensive it will prove to be. If we do not take action soon, this country will become a slum. We must do something about that.
It is argued that the Government could not raise the necessary capital because that would mean increasing the PSBR, which would mean that interest rates would soar, which would be inflationary and would also damp down investment by big business, and make it very difficult for the Government to raise money in the gilt-edged market. I dispute that. I have managed to scrape a living in the gilt-edged market for more than 30 years so I cannot always have been wrong about my hunches. At present, Britain's PSBR runs at about 1·5 per cent. in relation to the gross domestic product. Last year we significantly underspent. In the last financial year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor budgeted for a PSBR of £7 billion, but about a fortnight ago we at last got the actual figure for that financial year, and discovered that the PSBR was only £5·9 billion.
Thus, although my right hon. Friend already had an extraordinarily low PSBR, he actually undershot it by over £1 billion. With a PSBR of 1·5 per cent, we are equivalent to West Germany. We have only one third the PSBR of the United States, which has created 10 million new jobs in the past few years, which has a lower inflation rate than us and which has significantly lower interest rates than us. Our PSBR is less than that of Japan and is lower than that of France.

Mr. Lawson: I do not wish to argue with my hon. Friend on any of his points, but it would be helpful to get the facts straight. He should be aware—I am sure that he is—that, of the three major economies in the world, only the United States has a higher borrowing requirement than we have, and it is anxiously trying, as it accepts that is necessary, to get its budget down. Both Japan and Germany have significantly lower borrowing requirements as a proportion of GDP than we have.

Sir Peter Tapsell: That is not correct, but we cannot argue the point now. It is extremely difficult to calculate the Japanese PSBR, as my right hon. Friend knows, but the best advice that I have, and I have an office in Tokyo, is that the Japanese PSBR is running at about 2 per cent. Like us, West Germany has a PSBR of 1·5 per cent., but because of the big expenditure of its Länder — its provinces — because of it having a federal system, its PSBR figures are understated when they are set out only in federal terms. The United States, with a 4·5 per cent. PSBR, is doing extremely well by comparison with us. Its unemployment levels are half ours, it has a lower inflation rate, and it is on the way to solving its problems with its budgetary and trade deficits.
I shall tell the House what I should like to see the Government doing. The country could well afford to budget now for a PSBR of 2·5 per cent. rather than 1·5 per cent. If we did that, it would mean that we would be budgeting on a PSBR of about £10 billion to £10·5 billion instead of the present level of £5·9 billion, as it has turned out. That would be an extra £4 billion, with which one could begin to make a useful start in the re-equipment of our infrastructure and in particular housing, which would provide useful employment. There is no doubt that we need to spend money on housing. There are about 400,000 construction workers out of work and investment in housing would be a form of capital investment that would bring many people into work, and would not suck in imports.

Mr. Allen McKay: If the Government would allow local authorities to release capital receipts for use, would that not be a start to developing the infrastructure?

Sir Peter Tapsell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends have voted in that way, as have I.
The technical gilt-edged point is often talked about when we are discussing the PSBR. It is sometimes suggested that, if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor were to allow the PSBR to go up instead of always going down, that would lead to a strike in the gilt markets, but I do not believe that that is true. My thinking on this is as follows. Of course, there is a certain schizophrenia in the gilt market because, other things being equal, dealers and potential investors in the market like the PSBR to be as low

as possible because that means that there are fewer gilts to be sold. However, the market is now increasingly dominated by political considerations and will increasingly be so, not just by investors in this country, such as the pension funds, but by big holders of gilts and sterling throughout the world.
Increasingly, holders are thinking about what will happen in the next general election. If they think that the Labour party will come to power, they will start sealing gilts and sterling and I can say that as a matter of absolute certainty. They are already beginning to be worried. If that happens, interest rates will rise. On the other hand, if the Government were to announce a moderate but sensible increase in capital investment programmes, far from being frightened, the market which knows that the Conservatives cannot win the next election without substantially increasing the capital investment programmes, will take heart. Ironically, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have a better chance of keeping interest rates down if he increases the PSBR and capital investment than if he does not.
Even within the existing levels of public expenditure, there has been an unsatisfactory move, ever since 1979, towards an increase in current expenditure at the cost of capital investment. Although the overall real figure of public expenditure has gone up since 1979, the proportion of capital investment within that public expenditure figure has fallen from 11·6 per cent. to 10 per cent. of the total. To put the proportion of capital investment back to the 1979 level of 11·6 per cent. of public expenditure would cost £4 billion. That is, just to get back to the ratio of capital investment within the general public expenditure of 1979 would not necessarily cost extra money but would require a shift in resources back from current expenditure to capital investment. Even in 1979, I was arguing that the proportion of capital investment within the overall public expenditure was inadequately low.
Putting all that into the international context, we now have in Mr. James Baker, the United States Secretary for the Treasury, the international economic statesman for which the world has been crying out for years. He has been trying to fulfil the role that I have urged on my right hon. Friends for some years. On interest rates, on exchange rates, on trading policies, on Third world debt and, above all, in urging the whole of the OECD to expand, Mr. Baker is saying, from a position of great power and influence, what some of us have been urging from the political wilderness for some years. I hope that my right hon. Friends will listen to what Mr. James Baker is saying and will act upon it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am glad that the Paymaster General is here, because I want to put a couple of questions to him about constituency matters. Up to now, this has been an English debate, but Scotland has increasingly suffered through growing unemployment. Nowhere is that more evident than in my constituency. I put down a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland and received an answer from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), saying that, as of 10 April this year, 8,800 people are unemployed in my constituency.
There are one or two bright spots amidst this appalling gloom. For example, IBM employs 2,900 people at its plant in my constituency. Every day I say, "Thank God for


that." However, there is a dreadful economic and social backcloth for the approximately 33,000 people in my constituency who are living on or below the supplementary benefit level. That is an appalling statistic.
A number of community groups in my constituency are anxious to create employment, admittedly for a small number of people. They have brought a number of allegations to meetings that they have had with me concerning the less than helpful attitude of the Manpower Services Commission officials when applications for grants and assistance for community businesses are made. I welcome the Paymaster General's assurances that these allegations will be investigated because these community groups — amidst all this gloom — are doing splendid work. I think that there is some truth in the allegations, and I want them to be investigated.
The traditional industries of shipbuilding and marine engineering, based on the lower Clyde, have suffered grievously. The Scottish Office could offer help by ensuring that the orders for two vessels to be announced by the Scottish Office — one for a fisheries protection vessel for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Scotland) and the other for a passenger ferry for Caledonian MacBrayne—should be given to the lower Clyde. That would give some help to the beleaguered economy of a constituency north of the border.

Mr. John Prescott: This debate has demonstrated the wide range of thinking on the controversial issue of unemployment. I am bound to say that the one man who was totally consistent in his speech was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that his speech was the most deplorable speech on unemployment that the House has ever heard. It confirmed what we believe and what the electorate suspect and are beginning to believe—that it is deliberate Government policy to maintain a high level of unemployment in this country.
Before the Chancellor can say "Rubbish", let me refer to some of the evidence from his own publications and the Department of Employment which will justify what I have said. The Chancellor made no reference in his speech to unemployment. Instead he pointed out that the levels of employment are increasing, and indeed that is mentioned in the Government amendment. We wish to take this opportunity of a debate on unemployment to set the record straight, yet again, but according to the Government's statistics.
A comparison has been made with the Labour Government, yet there were more people in work when Labour left office in 1979—nearly 500,000 more—than when we came to office in 1974. That cannot be claimed by the Government. The Government statistics refer to 1983, but the Conservative Government came to power before 1983. The reality is that there are now 1·8 million fewer people in work than when the Government came to office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was far too generous when he suggested that the figure was about 1 million people. Although we cannot always rely on Government statistics, I have the answer to a private notice question from the Paymaster General which states how many people are in

work at present. I will not bore the House with the details, but it boils down to the fact that there are now 1·8 million fewer people in work than in 1979.
A substantial number of people are out of work, and I suggest that more people are out of work in this country than in most of our competitors. If we consider the average unemployment levels for the OECD countries, Britain's unemployment level, under previous Tory and Labour Governments, was always equal to the average for OECD countries. Since 1979, unemployment in Britain has been 2 per cent. higher than the OECD average. I asked the Library to work out that percentage. It effectively means that there are about 1 million more unemployed in this country than in other countries which have seen unemployment rise due to varying world demand.
I accept that the effects of world demand will increase unemployment, but it has had a far greater effect in this country. If one considers the OECD analysis or the National Economic Development Council report on our economy, it is clear that the levels of public expenditure—a point powerfully made by the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) — have been reduced proportionately in this country in hospitals, education and especially housing, which are important to job creation. Other countries have maintained public expenditure in such areas, but in Britain, because of Government policy, such expenditure has been cut. Unemployment in Britain is higher than the average for Europe and flows directly from Government policy.
In the debate the Chancellor has argued that employment is increasing. We heard the black propagandist, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), on the radio this morning saying that 1 million jobs have been created. One would expect that they were in full-time work, but the full-time equivalent of that 1 million jobs is made up largely of an estimate based on a 5 per cent. survey of the self-employed.
The figures have been continually fiddled over the past few years. The Minister's answer to me on 18 March confirms that. It stated that the number of self-employed had increased from 1·9 million to 2·5 million—500,000 of the jobs created. The judgments made by the Government and their statisticians are based on a "guesstimate". It has to be a "guesstimate" because it is based on a sample survey. The Paymaster General makes an estimate or judgment about the self-employed and then projects the figure of 1 million jobs created. That is another fiddle of the figures.
The Government have carried out 18 fiddles on the unemployment figures to get them to move downwards and now they are fiddling the employment figures upwards. The only policy we see from the Government is a policy for massaging the figures.
The record of the arch-propagandist, the right hon. Member for Chingford, is deplorable. He was the man who told us that trade union legislation would reduce the amount of working days lost. The Government's figures, again issued by the Paymaster General, show that more working days have been lost in disputes in six years under the Government compared with the previous period of Labour Government. That is the reality. The same man told us that we had to get training going in this country. The training and quality of our people is an important factor in the productivity and growth of our economy. Training has collapsed in this country. Employers spend less on training than do those of any of our competitors.

Mr. Lawson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Prescott: The Chancellor does not have to shake his head at me. I think it was the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission who said that Britain was a load of "thickies". That is not a word I would have chosen, but what he was suggesting was that the quality of training is lower in this country than it is in any of our competitors. It is no coincidence that in this country we devote only one-fifteenth of 1 per cent. of turnover to training. Most of our competitors spend 2 or 3 per cent. of turnover on training.
If one wishes to improve productivity, one improves investment. I thought I heard the Chancellor say that investment in manufacturing had increased by 31 per cent. but, in fact, he said, investment productivity. He should have mentioned that investment in manufacturing is now lower than it was in 1979. The quality of investment is as important as the quantity, but in both areas the Government have failed. Despite an increase of £30 billion in company profits, that has not been put into investment or training. They are the two crucial areas to which the Chancellor should address his remarks when he discusses improving pay or relating profits to wages.
The arch-propagandist, the right hon. Member for Chingford, believes that the people's attitude to the Government is caused by the Timpson and Redhead programme on Radio Four. He argues that the inflation record would be worse if a Labour Government were elected. I shall refer to the Department of Employment figures—I hope we can trust them—on inflation. It is clear from the figures that from 1975 to 1979 — the period of the Labour Government — inflation was halved. I shall give the figures if the Chancellor is in doubt, but I do not suppose that he spends much time studying these figures.
It is true that there has been a reduction in the inflation rate under the Government. If one is claiming that something specific has happened, a fair measure would be to take the inflation rate of Britain expressed as a proportion of the OECD average. The relationship of that proportion to the OECD average is no different from what it was when Labour were in office. There are many reasons why inflation has fallen in this period, but there is no specific evidence for the Government claim that their policies have played a significant part in reducing inflation.
There is one significant difference between Britain and the other OECD countries: none of them has experienced the high unemployment which has been maintained in this country. That is because the Government are completely indifferent to unemployment. If we want proof of that, we have only to recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer mithering on in his Budget statement about a 1p in the pound reduction in income tax. As Professor Galbraith said over the weekend, that would give the wealthy £1,000 million. If the Government want to bribe Tory voters who have high incomes, why do they not come out with that instead of masking their intentions by talking about public expenditure or the money supply? The realities are the Government's priorities.
The issue is how we use public expenditure and whether we can use it to create jobs, account having been taken of what the consequences might be. I do not think that the Government doubt that public expenditure can be used to create jobs. Presumably they would argue that the effects

on inflation, the borrowing requirement and interest rates—these are important matters and I do not dismiss them—would be too great to risk the possibility of reducing unemployment. It is clear that there is a difference between us.
There are many references in debates in this place and on television, for example, to redundancies and whether a plateau has been reached. We have seen a massive increase in unemployment. Unemployment, in both proportionate and absolute terms, is higher than that of the 1930s and it has been sustained for a lot longer than in the 1930s. Unemployment increased each year for four years in the 1930s and it has increased every year since the Government came to power, even since the magical figures of 1983 were introduced. Against that background, one would think that the plateau had been reached, but I do not think that it has.
We know that the rate of redundancy is continuing to increase. I have a document which was sent to me mistakenly by the Department of Employment. It is a copy of a confidential document that was given to the Paymaster General to brief him. On some questions it advises him what to say "If asked." Against others it tells him what not to say. In other sections he is told what he can say if he is required to say anything.
The Department's document reveals that redundancies are increasing and that they have increased to 10,000 a month. Apparently there would have been a greater increase if account had not been taken of community programmes. There are various projections and it was forecast that March should see a substantial fall in the figures of unemployment. I think that it projected a fall of 50,000, but unemployment increased by 40,000. The statisticians got it wrong again. Even the confidential advice that the Paymaster General receives from his civil servants is not very good. We must bear that in mind when the right hon. and learned Gentleman replies.
Redundancy levels have been increasing tremendously. In 1978, there were 34,000 redundancies for every three months. They increased to 148,000 by 1981 for three months. They decreased to 50,000 in 1985, and they are now increasing again. If anyone doubts that there has been an increase of 20,000 a month, he should think about the shipbuilding industry where 4,000 redundancies have been announced. There have been 3,000 in the coal industry; and this afternoon we heard about redundancies in the tin mines. There have been redundancies in the airlines, the engineering section of British Rail and Kodak. There have been 9,000 redundancies in the bus industry.
With the exception of the tin mines, the redundancies are the direct result of Government policy, including deregulation and the removal of public subsidies, that are maintained at different levels elsewhere in Europe. A significant part of Government policy is to deregulate or to privatise. In other words, there is a Government policy directly to create unemployment. It is clear that the Government are continuing the level of redundancies. I have that on good authority because it is part of the Department's advice.
When listening to some of the arguments about redundancies, I am reminded of the deplorable statement which was made by the Secretary of State for Employment, Lord Young, on a Sunday television programme at 8 am, during, which he declared that we had never had it so good.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He did not.

Mr. Prescott: Anyone who read the Daily Mirror the following day would know that Lord Young really meant that he had never had it so good. I am sick to death of wealthy Tory Ministers and millionaires telling the unemployed what they should be doing about getting a job. Lord Young has more responsibility for ruining training and MSC policies than anyone else, and he is now telling us that the way to create work is by removing the barriers to growth. He talks about business and not barriers. That means denying benefits to pregnant women and charging individuals £25 to go before an unfair dismissal tribunal.
What does Lord Young tell us about jobs? He argues that Socialist Governments in France and Italy——

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And Australia.

Mr. Prescott: And Australia, yes. The hon. Lady should wait to hear what I have to say. Lord Young contends that Socialist Governments have not performed as well as Conservative or Right-wing Governments. I can tell the Paymaster General that the Department of Employment has provided the information for him. There are 18 countries in the OECD, and I have worked out the figures for the Labour Governments and the other Governments. The document that the Department provided tells us that Britain has the second highest level of unemployment in the OECD. Above that it gives this advice:
(League Table) (Do not give).
Of the countries with below-average levels of unemployment, five are Socialist and three are Tory or of the Right. Of those with above average levels of unemployment, only three are Socialist. If anyone wants to play the silly game of comparing countries in that way, the figures show that Socialist Governments, who believe in public expenditure on housing, education, health and infrastructure, have performed extremely well. The Labour party has said that it would use public expenditure in precisely that way at a cost of £6 billion, which the Government would accept would be the cost of our programme to get people back to work. We will get people back to work. The country believes that to be so, and the Government will surely pay the price by being put out of office. We know that we can return our people to work.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I do not want to engage in an argument with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about statistics this evening. He and I usually get side-tracked into arguments of that sort. I am glad to see that he is making more generous use of Government statistics, both those he is supposed to have and those he is not. If he starts to place more reliance on our statisticians and the figures that we can provide him with, we shall have a better factual basis for our debates.
I think that the political basis of the debate is accepted on both sides of the House, but not by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who alone persists in the theory that somehow the Government are deliberately creating unemployment.

Mr. Prescott: They are.

Mr. Clarke: We all accept that the level of unemployment remains excessively high. A principal economic and social objective is to reduce it.

Mr. John Evans: Is unemployment too high?

Mr. Clarke: The increase in jobs that we have been seeing in the economy since early in 1983 — [Interruption.] In answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), of course unemployment is too high. The increase in jobs that we have been seeing since 1983 must be sustained and, if possible, improved upon. It is no good dismissing the increase in jobs by saying that they are all part-time jobs. Many of the unemployed who are looking for work are seeking part-time jobs. There is a growing amount of part-time work, and in all the other figures that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East uses he includes part-time workers. The total number of net additional jobs, taking account of those that have been lost since the spring of 1983, is 1 million. There was a 269,000 increase in 1985 alone. We must sustain the recovery in the economy that has been taking place since 1983 and, if possible, improve upon it.
I accept that for no section of the population has the growth yet proved adequate to deal entirely with the problem. The most encouraging figures are those for youth unemployment, which causes justifiable concern in all sections of the population. Fortunately, the level of youth unemployment has been falling steadily. In the three years to January 1986 unemployment has fallen by 35,000, or over 15 per cent., for the under-18s, and by 63,000, or over 10 per cent., for the under 20-year-olds.

Ms. Clare Short: It is not only the young who are unemployed.

Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Lady that that is an improvement that we wish to see across all sections of the population if we are to sustain the recovery of the economy, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I keep illustrating has undoubtedly taken place since early 1983. Further progress will depend, first, on maintaining the record of growth of the economy which we have been achieving for successive years, which is the best in western Europe.
It is, of course, possible to improve upon that record. We should all acknowledge that we must achieve greater success in keeping down unit wage costs and in linking payment more closely to performance. The Opposition should not dismiss that. They must realise that the majority of commentators have said that it is worrying that we are the only major developed country which does not have the general level of earnings increases falling with inflation to the extent achieved by most of our competitors.
On top of that sustained growth and greater success in keeping down our unit wage costs, we must continue to intervene and make improvements in the labour market. The improvements that we strive to achieve should further encourage small businesses, new businesses, self-employment and enterprise of all kinds. This is where the bulk of new jobs come from in this country and in the successful economies abroad.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) gave a valuable example of the work of the Genesis group, which is being supported by the Government through the highly successful youth training scheme.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the problems faced by community groups in his constituency in participating in Government programmes. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me with the details, I shall take up with the Manpower Services Commission the problems that he describes.
We must intervene in the labour market and improve our record on training, which is now very good compared with what it was for youth training. It must be improved for adult training, and industry's performance must also continue to improve. We must provide the long-term unemployed with work experience and job search skills.
That is a fair and reasonable analysis of the position. We must strive to maintain growth, we must improve the position on unit wage costs. and we must continue to improve our extremely rigid and inflexible labour market. That analysis is crucial for us to continue to tackle the problem.
Having listened to the debate initiated by the Opposition, I believe that it is clear that the Labour party continues to be extremely unreliable and positively dangerous in its views on all of the three areas that I have mentioned in my analysis. Our growth will undoubtedly be jeopardised by the kind of spending programmes envisaged by the Labour party. These will undoubtedly affect inflation.
I shall return in a moment to the speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), because he gave less detail today about his policies than he gave at the time of the Budget debate. The right hon. Gentleman tried to explain that he was proposing to spend only an extra £7 billion, but he has never adequately answered the Government's total of £24 billion. The right hon. Gentleman declined the opportunity to say which of the Labour party's policies will be postponed if he is to reach his spending target.
The Labour party is also completely unreliable about pay. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said the most extraordinary things about pay levels. On 14 May, at Conway Hall, the hon. Gentleman said:
Eight million people in Britain get poverty wages. Many more are paid less than the value of the jobs they do.
The hon. Gentleman is advocating substantial real wage increases for well over 8 million of the working population. He is advocating that at the expense of those who are currently unemployed, because he would damage the competitive position of the economy.
The Labour party remains completely unreliable about improving the working of the labour market. It is completely dominated by the trades union movement in its interest in so-called employment protection for those currently in work, which would impose rigidities and costs at the expense of those out of work. The Labour party's bill of rights, on which it is working, seems largely to comprise of the right to strike and the right to win union recognition.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. No one has given way, as this is a short debate, and I apologise to my hon. Friend.
If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East will not accept my analysis of the factors on which we must concentrate, I would ask him to look at the policy document that we are tabling for the European Council of

Ministers on Thursday. A copy of that document should have reached the hon. Gentleman today. It has been compiled by the Minister of Labour for Italy, the Minister of Labour for Ireland and myself as a basis for discussion. The idea is to have a discussion in the EEC about unemployment prospects and to approve the agenda of the Council.
The analysis is the same in that document. It stresses agreement on the need for continued growth and the importance of getting wage costs under control. It specifically concentrates on a need for greater flexibility in the labour market, and especially on improving the climate for small businesses, self-employment, part-time working and short-term contracts. It concentrates on all the issues that were resisted by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. East.
If the hon. Gentleman considers the three Ministers who have compiled the document, if he examines my collaborators, he will discover that they are the Socialist Minister for Labour in Italy and the Irish Minister for Labour, who is a member of the Irish Labour party. If the Labour party ever turned up at the Council of Ministers of the EEC, it would find itself surrounded by 11 other member states which would dismiss out of hand the remedies and approach put forward by the British Labour party in this House.
The document also considers training and concentrates on the worst social problem in this country and in the rest of western Europe, which is the growth in the number of long-term unemployed. We all argue about the figure of the long-term unemployed. Is it 3 million, less than 3 million or more than 3 million? Many of those unemployed people are flowing through the unemployment figures, as they are changing jobs. There are 30,000 leaving jobs and 30,000 entering jobs almost every day. Of those who become unemployed, 25 per cent. have jobs within six weeks, and half of them will get jobs within 12 weeks. The problem lies with the long-term unemployed, the 41 per cent. of all claimants — a little under 1·4 million—in April of this year.
The Government have concentrated on the restart programme, which is giving attention to the needs of almost 1·4 million people who are the long-term unemployed. When the Government embark upon an ambitious, expensive programme, mounted in order to bring help to the long-term unemployed, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East describes that as tea and sympathy, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook describes it as a gimmick. The truth is that we have embarked on a major programme to bring help to 1·4 million people. So far, of those who have been interviewed in the nine cities where the scheme is being tried, 90 per cent. have been offered a positive opportunity to take up from the menu that we have offered. I remind the House that 1,296 people have been placed in work in those nine cities and that many more have gone into training or found jobs for themselves after attending restart courses or job clubs.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook still makes rude remarks about job clubs because, as in the previous debate that we had on these matters, he still does not know what these clubs are. There are now 44 job clubs, placing two thirds of those in the clubs in jobs within a reasonable time, and the job start allowance is going well.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook did not set out a solitary detail of Labour's policy today. He repeated his


claim for 1 million new jobs, but it is still unclear, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to write to me about this, whether he is talking about 1 million new jobs over two years. If he is, that merely matches this Government's record over the past two years. Or is the right hon. Gentleman talking, as he did today, about 1 million off the unemployment total? He does not appreciate the demographic trends against him. In some speeches he uses one phrase, and in others he uses another. He has never given the slightest hint of the policies that will add up to 1 million off the unemployment figure. That is a tall order.
The details that the right hon. Gentleman gave during the debate on the Budget were scandalous in their scantiness. He has not added to them today. He had three proposals. He said that the Labour party would spend £1 billion on public sector capital programmes and a further £1 billion on public sector service employment. The reduction in national insurance contributions would cost another £1·5 billion. The right hon. Gentleman then seized on the Select Committee report, which he costed at £3·3 billion. He said that that would provide 750,000 of the jobs that he required. However, he does not realise that the Select Committee report contains two of the items that he has already listed. He has double counted them.
Professor Layard must be astonished, after helping the Select Committee to produce the report, to know that he was writing the entire policy of the Labour party, and apparently of the Liberal party, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) adopted the report heavily today.
Most of the so-called temporary jobs in the Health Service and social services would not exist. The other remedies would be hugely expensive and would cost some £6 billion or £7 billion. Their main effect would be to displace people from other jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) was the only hon. Member to tackle the argument about infrastructure spending. He held out the enticing prospect of a pre-election boom that would pay for itself by restoring confidence in the City. I hope he will accept that we have an excellent record on infrastructure spending, and there are serious doubts whether spending £4 billion on housing, which he recommended, would create the jobs that he described.
The Government's record is good. Most of the alternative remedies would threaten the growth, low inflation and creation of new jobs which the Government's policies are steadily producing.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 323.

Division No. 195]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Anderson, Donald
Bell, Stuart


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Ashdown, Paddy
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashton, Joe
Bidwell, Sydney


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Blair, Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Barnett, Guy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)





Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
John, Brynmor


Bruce, Malcolm
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Buchan, Norman
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lambie, David


Campbell, Ian
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leighton, Ronald


Canavan, Dennis
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cartwright, John
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Thomas
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clay, Robert
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David Gordon
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McKelvey, William


Cohen, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Maclennan, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McNamara, Kevin


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Corbett, Robin
Mallon, Seamus


Corbyn, Jeremy
Marek, Dr John


Craigen, J. M.
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Crowther, Stan
Martin, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tarn
Maxton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meacher, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dormand, Jack
Nellist, David


Douglas, Dick
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dubs, Alfred
O'Brien, William


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Eadie, Alex
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Eastham, Ken
Park, George


Ellis, Raymond
Patchett, Terry


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pendry, Tom


Ewing, Harry
Penhaligon, David


Fatchett, Derek
Pike, Peter


Faulds, Andrew
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Radice, Giles


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Randall, Stuart


Flannery, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, Martin


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Freud, Clement
Rogers, Allan


Garrett, W. E.
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Ryman, John


Gourlay, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W, (Fife Central)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hancock, Michael
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Haynes, Frank
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Snape, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Soley, Clive


Howells, Geraint
Spearing, Nigel


Hoyle, Douglas
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Hume, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dr R, (Carmarthen)






Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
White, James


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Tinn, James
Wilson, Gordon


Torney, Tom
Winnick, David


Wainwright, R.
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Weetch, Ken
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Mark Fisher.


Welsh, Michael





NOES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Cranborne, Viscount


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Critchley, Julian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Crouch, David


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Ancram, Michael
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Den


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Dunn, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Durant, Tony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Batiste, Spencer
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Farr, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Anthony


Benyon, William
Fletcher, Alexander


Best, Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forman, Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fox, Marcus


Body, Sir Richard
Franks, Cecil


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fry, Peter


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Galley, Roy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bright, Graham
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brinton, Tim
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gow, Ian


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John
Gregory, Conal


Bruinvels, Peter
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Grist, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Ground, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hannam, John


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Harris, David


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hayes, J.


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hayward, Robert


Cockeram, Eric
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Conway, Derek
Henderson, Barry


Coombs, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Hickmet, Richard


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert





Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hind, Kenneth
Newton, Tony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Normanton, Tom


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steven


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles
Porter, Barry


Jackson, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Powell, Rt Hon J. E.


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powley, John


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Price, Sir David


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


Key, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Rathbone, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Renton, Tim


Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lang, Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lawler, Geoffrey
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rost, Peter


Lester, Jim
Rowe, Andrew


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lightbown, David
Ryder, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sims, Roger


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spencer, Derek


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Madel, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Marlow, Antony
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Moate, Roger
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon C, (Devizes)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trippier, David


Neale, Gerrard
Trotter, Neville


Needham, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian






van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Wheeler, John


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Whitfield, John


Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Waddington, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Wolfson, Mark


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Woodcock, Michael


Walters, Dennis
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth



Watson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Francis Maude.


Wells, Bowen (Hertford)



Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith purstant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendents):—

The House Divided: Ayes 312, Noes 193

Division No. 196]
[7.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Clegg, Sir Walter


Aspinwall, Jack
Cockeram, Eric


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cope, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cormack, Patrick


Baldry, Tony
Couchman, James


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cranborne, Viscount


Batiste, Spencer
Crouch, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellingham, Henry
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bendall, Vivian
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, William
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Best, Keith
Dover, Den


Bevan, David Gilroy
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Robert


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Blackburn, John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Farr, Sir John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Favell, Anthony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fletcher, Alexander


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brinton, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Fox, Marcus


Browne, John
Franks, Cecil


Bruinveis, Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Freeman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Fry, Peter


Bulmer, Esmond
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Galley, Roy


Butcher, John
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Butterfill, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Greenway, Harry


Cash, William
Gregory, Conal





Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Malone, Gerald


Grist, Ian
Maples, John


Ground, Patrick
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, David


Hannam, John
Merchant, Piers


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Harris, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Moate, Roger


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayes, J.
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Tony


Hickmet, Richard
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howard, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensboume)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powley, John


Irving, Charles
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Prior, Rt Hon James


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rathbone, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Renton, Tim


Key, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Latham, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lightbown, David
Scott, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David John
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Derek


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McQuarrie, Albert
Squire, Robin


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, Rt Hon John






Steen, Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (Tside N)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Walters, Dennis


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sumberg, David
Warren, Kenneth


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watson, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitfield, John


Thornton, Malcolm
Whitney, Raymond


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Michael


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Waddington, David





NOES


Abse, Leo
Conlan, Bernard


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton North)


Alton, David
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashdown, Paddy
Craigen, J. M.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Dr John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Barnett, Guy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Barron, Kevin
Deakins, Eric


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Donald


Bell, Stuart
Dobson, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dormand, Jack


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Douglas, Dick


Bermingham, Gerald
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Blair, Anthony
Eadie, Alex


Boyes, Roland
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Ellis, Raymond


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Ewing, Harry


Bruce, Malcolm
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ian
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Forrester, John


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Foulkes, George


Cartwright, John
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freud, Clement


Clarke, Thomas
Garrett, W. E.


Clay, Robert
George, Bruce


Clelland, David Gordon
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Godman, Dr Norman


Cohen, Harry
Gould, Bryan





Gourlay, Harry
Park, George


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Patchett, Terry


Hancock, Michael
Pendry, Tom


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Pike, Peter


Haynes, Frank
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Raynsford, Nick


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Howells, Geraint
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hoyle, Douglas
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Rooker, J. W.


Hume, John
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Janner, Hon Greville
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Ryman, John


Kennedy, Charles
Sedgemore, Brian


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lambie, David
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ronald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Snape, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Gavin


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McTaggart, Robert
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


McWilliam, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mallon, Seamus
Tinn, James


Marek, Dr John
Torney, Tom


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wainwright, R.


Martin, Michael
Wallace, James


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wareing, Robert


Maxton, John
Weetch, Ken


Maynard, Miss Joan
Welsh, Michael


Meacher, Michael
White, James


Michie, William
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Gordon


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton, SE)


Nellist, David



Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. Mark Fisher.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr.Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved
That this House congradulates Hrer Majesty's Government on the success of its economic policies in securing the lowest rate of inflation for over 18 years and steadily rising employment.

Mr. Victor Paige

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether the Secretary of State for Social Services has sought your permission to make a statement on the precipitate resignation this afternoon of Mr. Victor Paige, the chairman of the National Health Service management board, in the middle of his period of office. It seems to me to be so significant a matter that the Secretary of State ought to be here. When Mr. Paige was appointed in January 1985, the Secretary of State said that his appointment was——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received no such request. We must get on.

Mr. Dobson: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received no request. The hon. Member knows that it is not a matter for me. If he deals with it through the usual channels, he may get some satisfaction.

Mr. Dobson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House is here. It was an important appointment that was announced by the Prime Minister and it was welcomed with a vast fanfare of trumpets. It was promised that Mr. Paige's appointment would bring about massive improvements in National Health Service efficiency. When he resigns, because he is sickened by what is happening, there is to be no statement in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We do not know what will happen tomorrow.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since Mr. Paige has resigned from a lucrative job, he is obviously very concerned about something that clearly is a matter for public debate. I wonder whether you will advise the House about how this matter can be brought urgently to the Floor of the House

and the Secretary of State made to come here and explain what is going on in the Health Service that has forced Mr. Paige to resign from a very lucrative job.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Gentleman on tactics of that sort. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will this be a helpful point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that approximately four hours ago I raised a point of order. It is significant that this resignation was announced half an hour after I raised my point of order, which related to a letter that was written to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee by Mr. Paige answering questions on the level of services being provided by four health districts in the south of England. It is important that a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, because the House wishes to know whether there is a connection between my point of order and the breach of privilege which was reported to the House by me and Mr. Paige's resignation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has agreed to write to me about the alleged breach of privilege.

Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall try, as ever, to be helpful. This procedure has been adopted on several occasions when it has been necessary to ask for your guidance on how we can get a statement, and you have invited the Leader of the House to say something. Since he is present now, would you repeat that procedure?

Mr. Speaker: No. I do not invite the Leader of the House to do that. If he volunteers, that is another matter.

The Lord PrivySeal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): rose——

Hon. Members: Hurrah!

Mr. Biffen: In response to such genuinely popular acclaim, I should say that these matters are ordinarily considered through the usual channels, and I imagine that they will be as effective on this occasion as they have been on others.

Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—(28 April]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, I represent Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, in Scotland. I received a letter from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) asking me to be present today to participate in the debate on the Harwich Parkeston Quay Bill. It appears that Scottish Tory Members are trying to organise Scottish Labour and other hon. Members at the behest, and perhaps other sorts of influence, of Lord Lauderdale—a Member of the other place. Is it right that such influence should be used by someone whom I understand has a material pecuniary interest in the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what pressures the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) could bring to bear on the issue. We had better get on.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is an absolute disgrace that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) should suggest such a thing. Had he seen the Order Papers of the past few months and been in attendance on Monday 28 April, he would have found a perfectly good reason why I and other colleagues wished to raise the matter tonight.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Demon and Reddish): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that during the debate on the quorum for the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the Chairman of Ways and Means gave an undertaking that an inquiry would be set up into the procedure on private Bills. That has not yet appeared on the Order Paper. It is unfortunate that the Chair gave assurances in February that there would be an inquiry into the procedure, but that we have made no progress.
Tonight's procedure is rather unusual. It is normal for the promoter of a private Bill to try his hand at getting it through on the nod at 2.30 pm. If he is unsuccessful, he tries to obtain a debate at seven o'clock. It is fairly normal on Second Reading to get one shot until 10 o'clock. If the promoter cannot secure a majority for the closure or for his measure, the Chairman of Ways and Means tends to let the matter rest until further negotiations have taken place between the promoters and the objectors to see whether a consensus can emerge.
It is rather odd that tonight two Bills are being offered a second helping of parliamentary time, although no negotiations have been successful on either Bill. We should set up the inquiry into procedure before we develop a new procedure that allows Bills to have a second shot. Could the Chairman of Ways and Means, or you, Mr. Speaker, throw any light on whether the new procedure has been set up?

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, discussions are continuing. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. I am not responsible for putting down private Bills for debate. That is entirely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, and he has correctly so done.

Mr. Jack Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Straw: If, as you have just said, discussions are continuing, what purpose will be served tonight by the House debating those matters when the House cannot know the outcome of the discussions?

Mr. Speaker: Because discussions take time

Dr. John Marek: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any precedent for two private Bills which failed to reach a conclusion being taken in advance of many other private Bills that have been blocked? It must seem to many hon. Members that this is unfair to those other private Bills.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means has the power to put down such adjourned debates. It has been done frequently, and has been done tonight.

Mr. Peter Pike: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an abuse of the procedures of the House to try to waste time in this way.

Mr. Pike: The point on which I wish to seek your advice, Mr. Speaker, relates to the British Railways (Stansted) Bill. In the Vote Office with the papers on the Bill is a statement issued on behalf of British Rail which I believe is grossly misleading. The final sentence of the statement says:
The Bill was debated on 24th February and the debate was adjourned. Since then, the Board have made strenuous efforts to satisfy those Honourable Members who opposed the Bill, The promoters respectfully submit that they should be allowed to put forward to the Committee to whom the Bill may be referred their case for the proposals of, and clauses in, the Bill and that the Bill should accordingly now be given a Second Reading.
As one of those hon. Members who spoke against the Bill on Second Reading, I must inform the House that no attempts have been made to satisfy me on the subject and, as far as I am aware, no proposal to do so has ever been made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point would be best raised when we reach that Bill.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McQuarrie: Further to the earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. McQuarrie.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear two points of order at once.

Mr. McQuarrie: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley did not have the courtesy to advise me in advance that he would mention my name in the House. During his point of order, he said something about a pecuniary interest. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman was not asserting that I or the hon. Members whose names appear on the Order Paper have a pecuniary


interest in the matter. If he has done so, I must make it clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have a pecuniary interest in the matter. Nor, as far as I am aware, do any of my hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman made that assertion, he should withdraw it now and apologise.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that he will.

Mr. Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make it clear that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan speaks for himself? He says that he has no pecuniary interest. Had he listened carefully, he would have known that I did not suggest that he had a pecuniary interest. I said that the person who was pulling the strings and giving him the words to say—Lord Lauderdale—has a pecuniary interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not cast reflections upon the honour of a Member of the other House.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised the question of how much progress had been made in the inquiry into private Bills. Since I observe that the Chairman of Ways and Means is now in the Chamber, would it be possible for him to make a statement telling us what progress has been made in setting up the procedure or, if it is not possible for him to make a statement now, whether he could make a statement to the House at an early opportunity because you will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he spoke from the Treasury Bench, albeit not at the Dispatch Box, when the House considered the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. I think that we have been very patient on the Opposition Benches in waiting since February for the setting up of that inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Ways and Means, who has come into the Chamber, has indicated that he will be very pleased to deal with the matter when he comes into the Chair in a short while.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: When I was rudely interrupted by the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) on 28 April, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I said,
That is why—"—[Official Report, 28 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 751.]
and I did not get the opportunity to complete my sentence. I was always taught that it was a matter of good manners that one did not interrupt people in mid-sentence, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich has no good manners. I say that for this reason. This very morning when I was attempting to persuade him on the telephone to negotiate, he actually threatened me that he would make it difficult for me to retain my seat in Perthshire by making remarks, which the Labour party might take up, to the effect that I was anti-employment, so I was threatened by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich, and I propose to take that up with the Committee of Privileges. If my hon. Friend disputes that matter, let him stand up and say that he did not threaten me. I find that particularly offensive for this reason.
My opposition to the Bill is based on principle. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) need not giggle about principle. I doubt

whether he has ever heard of principle. But one day he may actually stand on it, and it would be a good thing if he did.

Mr. Foulkes: I was laughing not at the question of principle but at associating principle with the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken.

Mr. Fairbairn: Exactly. Clearly the hon. Gentleman does not have principle.
I take the view that it is wrong that the House of Commons should grant a right to a company to develop an area, that that company should then spend 12 years and a great deal of money doing this—frustrated, I may say, by other Acts of Parliament and Government and Government Departments—and that then along should come an American company to take away that right without compensation.
Let me start from where I was last time. Hon. Members who heard the debate will remember that the principle I was making was that it was odd that there had been no attempt at negotiation by the company that is seeking the legislation, the American company that calls itself British Ferries but is an American company run by Mr. Sherwood, USA, who is not in this country often enough to sign the letters that he writes me—they are all signed in his absence. I understood that this House had recently freshened its anti-American stance and objected to the idea that an American company might take over British Leyland or parts of it or even Westland helicopters.
Let us be clear. This company, it was claimed in the debate by the hon. Member for Harwich—and I have Hansard here—was happy to negotiate. Strange it was indeed that that negotiation started only on the day that we last had our debate. It sent a letter that was despatched by hand apparently but never arrived. I am not surprised that it did not arrive because I was attempting this morning to come to a last moment negotiation with the hon. Member for Harwich, and he promised to let me know before this debate whether the matter was acceptable. I have not heard from him. Of course I have not heard from him because they do not keep their word.
That is the matter that we are debating. All Ministers, with the Government three-line Whip, have been told that they always vote for a closure so they will not know what they are voting for, they will not know about principle, they will not mind about the matter; all they will do is be pushed as propellants are into the muzzle of a cannon to come out having discharged their function, regardless of its effect. That is what will happen.
Therefore, I think that it is important that I should remind the House of exactly what was said on 28 April to give an indication that this was not a matter in which those seeking the legislation—this American company—and seeking employment were unwilling to negotiate.

Mr. Foulkes: I find it somewhat strange that the hon. and learned Member for South Tayside is so knowledgeable about an issue that is clearly a matter of concern to Harwich and the surrounding areas. Where does the hon. and learned Gentleman get all this information from? On what basis can he make such detailed statements about the negotiations that are taking place? Why should we as hon. Members take his word on this matter? Why has he, a Scottish Member of Parliament, any particular knowledge, expertise and understanding on this issue?

Mr. Fairbairn: First, I am happy to tell the House that, instead of allowing my constituency to bear a bogus name like South Tayside, I was able to retain the names of places in Scotland that actually exist like Perth and Kinross, so I am not the Member for South Tayside.
Secondly, as the hon. Member who failed in that project—and, therefore, we cannot remember the name of his constituency, except that it is somewhere in Ayrshire—seems to imagine that he has a special knowledge of places 8,000 miles away, I dare say that he is informed by penguins. When he goes to Argentina to be informed by the penguins he frequently gets egg on his face, as far as I can recall, so I do not think that he should ask me that sort of question.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask that question, which is particularly naive and absurd, let me tell him this. Where do I get my information when I appear as counsel—who gives it to me? I get my information from solicitors, from witnesses and from policemen. I do not know whether the information is accurate or inaccurate, but I get it from the person who is concerned with the matter and whom I ask. Of course I do. That does not mean that the information is accurate or inaccurate. But I can say this to the hon. Gentleman: I can see a cheat a long way away, and this is a cheat. It is a cheat attempting to deprive a person, to use Parliament to avoid having to compensate. That is the matter to which I want to come.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is hot-blooded and light-headed. That is a matter that he has made available to the House by everything that he has ever indulged in, and I love him for it, but that is no reason why on this occasion he should not be hard-headed and cold-blooded and I would invite him to he so for a few minutes.
We have a Bill seeking powers to remove powers already granted by Parliament. Where is the justice in using private legislation to do that? One does not have to rely upon evidence from anybody; one does not have to have friends; one does not have to be bought or influenced. When one sees a wrong as wrong as that, one does not need to go further from that principle.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made insulting remarks—

Mr. Fairbairn: I will not give way because they were not insulting remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given way, and he cannot withdraw that.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was incorrect. There are precedents. The precedents for this were a common feature of the 1970 railway legislation. One example is Ryde pier.

Mr. Fairbairn: First, those precedents have nothing to do with this matter. Secondly, I did not say that there were no precedents. Thirdly, the insulting remarks that I am alleged to have made about my hon. Friend are the truth, because that is what he said to me. If he is willing to stand up in the House and go on record that he did not threaten me this morning in the way that I described, I am willing to let the matter rest. But he should remember that there are two telephones in my house and not one. In Scotland we need corroboration, so it is not a bad idea to have somebody else on the other end. Since he has not sought to withdraw those remarks, probably they were made.
To get back to where I started, in the debate on 28 April the hon. Member for Harwich—I took him in good faith as I do still——

Mr. David Winnick: He is the hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friend.

Mr. Fairbairn: He is my hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand the conventions of honourable friendship, he should do so. In court we call them learned friends; in this House we call them hon. Friends. The fact that we hate them or love them does not matter. It is a method of diffusing anger, and it is a good one.
On 28 April the hon. Member for Harwich said that he had in his hand a letter about the Bill from Sherwoods—that is the American company—dated 14 April. He quoted the letter as follows:
When we considered with you at the telephone today a possible date for the proposed meeting to discuss the issue raised in your client's petition against this Bill, it appeared that the three alternative, dates offered by the promoters would not be convenient. We have' since obtained further instructions and are now able to offer the afternoon of Tuesday the 29th April. Please let us know whether a meeting in our offices at, say, 2.30 on that date would be acceptable." —[Official Report, 28 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 745.]
That would have been the day after the debate on the Bill. This letter, which was said by the hon. Member for Harwich at the time of the debate to have been delivered, has not yet arrived.
So we come to the question of negotiations. In good faith I believe that it is wrong that the ordinary compensation for work done should not be paid by those who will benefit from it. I believe that to be a principle. I do not see why Parliament should be a party to allowing a civil claim to be extinguished when we are talking about a sum which is valued by actuaries at £7·4 million and which certainly could not be valued at less than one tenth of that.
I have been attempting to negotiate between the patties. Last week a sum of £200,000 was offered. I attempted to negotiate again this morning. I was informed that I would be told whether the negotiation that I had made was reasonable and acceptable. I would have attempted to get the company whose Bill is sought to be extinguished to accept that negotiation, but t have not even had the courtesy of a reply from the hon. Member for Harwich. That seems to me to indicate a certain lack of good faith. I am sure that I share with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley the view that that lack of faith is not to be commended.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the hon. and learned Member saying that he was acting as a mediator between the two parties on the matter? He is now participating in the debate. Does he not recognise that there may be a conflict of interest in those two roles?

Mr. Fairbairn: I thought that, as ever, the hon. Gentleman would get it wrong. I wish that he would become hard-headed and not feather-headed. I attempted as a Member of the House to do my best to prevent the matter having to go on. If there was good faith, I was anxious to find and to implicate that good faith. I was not acting as a lawyer. One of the rules that I have always used as a lawyer is to say to my client, "Never litigate if you can settle." I was trying to get the matter settled. Not only


has the matter not been settled, but my attempts have not even had the courtesy of an acknowledgement. That is why I find the matter continually offensive.

Mr. Alex Fletcher: I want to try to measure the reaction of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to what my hon. and learned Friend has just said. There might still be some doubt as to what my hon. and learned Friend is saying about his capacity in the matter. Am I correct in thinking that he is acting entirely as a Member of the House and not in any way in a professional capacity?

Mr. Fairbairn: That is absolutely so. I was trying to act in the best of good faith as an honest broker. If I may remind hon. Members who were not at the previous debate, I said then:
It is not that I do not trust my hon. Friend,"—
the hon. Member for Harwich—
but given the history of non-negotiation and sudden negotiation it is clear that there is no real intent to negotiate by those who seek to extinguish the powers granted by Parliament to the Earlpar company.

Mr. Foulkes: rose——

Mr. Fairbairn: I am not giving way because the last points that the hon. Member made were so futile, so perverse, so childish and so petty. I may in time have that Christian equity for which I am asking the House tonight, but just for the moment the hon. Gentleman will have to sit on his backside and think; he should use his brain for a moment and not his feet.

Mr. Foulkes: rose——

Mr. Fairbairn: In the debate on 28 April I said:
I am sorry to say that, notwithstanding all the generosity within my heart, I do not believe the good will of those on behalf of whom my hon. Friend speaks. However, I shall believe in the equity and honour of those on behalf of whom he speaks if tonight we decide that the Bill's Second Reading should be postponed for six months.
That would have given time to negotiate.
I do not know the procedures that apply in the consideration of these matters … However, if we are successful and the Bill is not considered for a further six months, we may come to know … that by chance and coincidence rather than chastening the matter has been resolved." —[Official Report, 28 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 749.]
It ought to have been resolved. The offer from the American company proposing the Bill came only on the night of that debate. It has never been received and it has never been fulfilled. When the company took the view that it would get away with it, it offered a derisory sum and said, "We will go on."

Mr. Foulkes: I am still not clear about the role of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross as a negotiator. As I understand it from having read his previous contributions and from what he has been saying tonight, he is clearly partisan. He is clearly arguing the case of Lord Lauderdale's company, the existing company. As one of the strongest advocates of one particular case, how did he imagine that he could possibly be accepted as some kind of honest broker or arbiter in this dispute? Is that not a naive and incredible assumption?

Mr. Fairbairn: It is a naive and incredible question. When I am acting for any client I am presumably the most prejudiced person there is. That does not alter the fact that

I am the best person to achieve a settlement, whether it is a civil or criminal claim because I am in cognisance of the matters at stake and one can negotiate with the other side on that basis.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the hon. and learned Gentleman's view, would a period of six months enable the parties to reach a reasonable settlement? Several times the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned the unreasonable and derisory sum. What in his opinion would be a reasonable sum?

Mr. Fairbairn: I shall answer the first point of the hon. Member for Port Glasgow and Greenock (Dr. Godman).

Mr. Foulkes: Greenock and Port Glasgow.

Mr. Fairbairn: The constituencies used to be named with the area closest to London coming first. I do not know whether they still are and I am not sure whether Greenock or Port Glasgow is closer to London. However, I am fond of them both as I am of the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that the last debate was established with the sudden offer to negotiate. Then, when the matter was put back on the Order Paper, the refusal to negotiate, or a derisory offer, and the fact that my offers to mediate have been met with plain rudeness and neglect show that there is no willingness to negotiate. Therefore, whether it was a period of six months or sixty years, I do not think that time is a factor. If I thought that there was a genuine offer to negotiate, I would be more than happy and the hon. Member for Harwich knows that as well as I do. I see no chance of that and it is for that reason that I believe a wrong is being done in the name of the House.
Various matters have come to my attention. I received a photocopy of a letter from somebody whose name I cannot read on behalf of the chairman of the American company, Mr. J. B. Sherwood. It was dictated and signed in his absence. If it was dictated in his absence, I take it that it is not from him. The letter makes a number of points which are false and at no stage does it offer to negotiate. It does not offer to compensate for 12 years of work.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has disappeared, but let me put the case on two sides. On one side it is suggested that the company which was granted the powers under the Bathside Bay Development Act 1972 did nothing. It did not have any money, did not do anything about it and should therefore have the right taken away. On the other side is the fact that the company did 12 years' work. It was consistently frustrated by requirements of section 9 permission and when that was granted it had made an arrangement with a company to develop the resources and provide exactly the same employment as the American company concerned. I must say, the American company has considerably reduced its employment figures. That is the bracket of the argument. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley does not feel that an advocate is capable of taking an impartial view when he knows the bracket of the dispute. That is the bracket of the dispute and I do not accept it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, although there may be a dispute between the promoters of the original Bill and the new Bill, there is also another argument which, unfortunately, we have not had much time to address. That argument is


whether this country needs extra port facilities and that if we developed any they would be at the expense of existing ports. That is a major argument that hon. Members should have some opportunity to deploy, as well as the argument between the two promoters of proposals for harbours at Harwich.

Mr. Fairbairn: I agree with that and that is why I do not think that I have to answer the charge made by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley when he asked what a Scottish Member was doing about an English matter. We are members of the United Kingdom Parliament. The English vote on Scottish legislation and the Scots vote on English legislation. We are part of one country. I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that he should address the House on the matter of whether there are sufficient port facilities and what those port facilities should be. As I have said before, there are also ports on the east coast of Scotland. There are Dundee, Perth and Inverness and on the west coast of Scotland there are a number of important facilities on the Clyde, part of which the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow is in charge of. Therefore, the question of what ports are required and where they should be is an important matter. I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye.
The letter, which was dictated and signed in the absence of the chairman of the American company, sets out a number of reasons why he believes that the scheme is not plausible. He is entitled to take that view. In my opinion, the reasons are all as irrelevant as the matter raised by the hon. Member for Harwich when he said that there is a precedent in early railway law. I know the cases of early railway law. When every monkey wanted to form a railway company and wanted to go from Harwich to Felixstowe, Inverness to Perth and Perth to Dundee, somebody had to say "Just a minute. We cannot have railways going from everywhere to everywhere in different companies". As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said, as we must regulate to ports so we must regulate the railways. They are nothing to do with one Bill attempting to extinguish the rights granted to one company by another Bill and funds expended.
It is alleged by those who propose the Bill that the company which obtained the Bathside Bay Development Act 1972 has done nothing. That is entirely false. A vast amount of work has been done and a vast amount of benefit has been achieved. That cannot be denied. I have had a great number of letters from people who live in Harwich, Felixstowe and the surrounding areas who are as concerned as I am about this proposal. If we vote for the Bill, what is the guarantee that the American company will not reduce its labour force? What is the guarantee that it will do anything? What is the guarantee that it will provide this employment? We have that guarantee from the company which currently has legislative permission to do what is asked. The hon. Member for Harwich, in his self-righteous concern, says that he wants to create employment — and all hon. Members want to create employment in their constituencies. That could be one reason. We would get more jobs in Perth if Perth harbour was not challenged by other harbours. Therefore, let us understand that there are conflicting interests.

Sir Bernard Braine: It is not a question of whether the scheme will provide employment merely

for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale), if the Bill is passed. Essex county is represented by about 14 hon. Members, and control of the council is shared by all three political parties. It is firmly in favour of the scheme because it believes that the scheme will provide considerable employment, not merely in Harwich, but throughout the county. Therefore, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not concentrate all his bile on my hon. Friend, but will recognise that the matter concerns a county of 1·25 million people.

Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate that. The present company is able and willing, and has made exactly the same arrangements. All we are saying is that Earlpar w ill have its rights transferred to an American company. What will happen when the American recession occurs, wher the dollar falls or when the company discovers that the scheme is not in its interests? It will first close the outposts. Let us be clear that we are substituting an American company for a British company, which has already made arrangements for the task.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly valid point except that he has not explained at any stage in his lengthy speech on the previous occasion or in his lengthier speech tonight what the company which he advocates has done since the passage of the Bathside Bay Development Act 1972. What steps have been taken to advance this wholly desirable project? What moves have been undertaken to ensure that work can start? The only work that has been undertaken has been undertaken by Essex county council.

Mr. Fairbairn: That is untrue, and my hon. Friend should know that. Earlpar has a scheme to develop the matter.
Let us consider the American company's proposals, and what Mr. Sherwood, who dictates and signs letters in his absence, said on 8 July 1985. He spoke of sea containers for the proposed harbour development
as user commitments become available.
If user commitments do not become available, he will do nothing. The House should be clear about that. Mr. Sherwood is not committed to doing anything. He seeks to obtain the huge benefit of drilling and information for nothing by putting an Act through Parliament.
Since January, Parkeston quay has lost to Felixstowe the services of two freightliners, carrying vehicle components to and from Europe. It is alleged that the previous company has never been able to get finance. I am not speaking on behalf of the previous company. I am saying that there is a parliamentary wrong in passing a Bill which enables another company, and at that a foreign company, to reap benefits without compensation. That seems to be an inevitable wrong.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there are considerable problems arising from Mr. Sherwood's involvement in the Dover harbour area, where he is causing grave difficulties about the passage of various items of equipment and for personnel? According to the Dover harbour board, its relationship with Mr. Sherwood is far from satisfactory. Is that not an indication of the problems that may arise for the Harwich Parkeston quay area and the county council if this measure is passed?

Mr. Fairbairn: I am aware of that, and of the extreme disturbance of the unions in Dover at the effect that the company has had there. This is a matter of considerable principle.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not wish to delay the matter, but it is important for the House to understand what it is doing. In America this is called the steamrolling process: one looks for an asset and strips it, and if one must use a parliamentary process to obtain it, well and good.

Mr. Stephen Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman may know that the company in question controls 80 per cent. of the routes to the Isle of Wight. On several occasions I have criticised Sealink, but I cannot listen to the hon. and learned Gentleman's criticisms. Sealink has made a considerable investment in the Isle of Wight since it took control of the routes. The hon. and learned Gentleman's Government sold British Rail Sealink to what he calls an American company, although I think it is a British company which happens to have an American chairman. It is registered in either Bermuda or the Bahamas. Nevertheless, the investment has been substantial. Sealink is building a new 150-car ferry on the Humber, and it has just bought or built in Tasmania two new catamaran-type fast ferries, one of which is already in operation between Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. It is wholly wrong to portray Sealink as a badly administered company which can run away overnight. Obviously, it will not do that.

Mr. Fairbairn: I did not say that Sealink would run away overnight, and it may have helped the Isle of Wight substantially. Newspaper readers on the Isle of Wight will undoubtedly be delighted to read that intervention, which does not appear to have much to do with Harwich. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to get his plug in, which is about as much as the Liberal party is ever likely to get.

Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman's Government sold Sealink to the Americans.

Mr. Fairbairn: I do not mind that the company is American. I look forward to foreign investment in the United Kingdom. All I am saying is that some hon. Members have been saying that America has no place here. Why are they not present to say that on this occasion? It is not a question of investment, but of parliamentary theft. That is what I am objecting to on principle. I have no financial or political interest, but I have an ethical interest. Parliament should not be used to allow one company to remove the investment of another company and benefit from it. No wonder that the Isle of Wight is benefiting so much if this company can obtain £1 million or £4 million of benefit for nothing.

Mr. David Amess: My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Sir J. Ridsdale) has represented his constituents with diligence and distinction for the past 32 years without interruption. He has been sustained by the electorate in both popular and unpopular times for the Conservative party. Surely no one would doubt that there is no hon. Member who knows more about the needs of Harwich than my hon. Friend. If my hon. Friend thinks a bid is good for Essex, Harwich, and the country, I certainly support it.
I should particularly like to draw to the attention of the House the amount of local support for the Bill. Essex county council is no longer controlled by the Conservative party. It is a hung council, and the chairman, Mr. Bill Dixon-Smith, has expressed the council's complete support for the Bill. As far as I am aware, every Essex Member of Parliament supports the Bill. I understand that it also has the support of the unions, especially the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association.
The crucial matter that we should consider tonight is that of employment. If we give the Bill a Second Reading, how many jobs will be created? It is often said that the south of the country is cushioned from unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich does not have anywhere near enough jobs for his constituents. I wonder how many hon. Members realise that Harwich has an unemployment rate of 14·3 per cent. and that Clacton, in another part of the constituency, has an unemployment rate of 19·2 per cent.? Overall, my hon. Friend's constituency has an unemployment rate of 17·3 per cent., which is considerably above the national average, and is certainly higher than the rate in Basildon.
I hope that the House will take note of two letters that I have received. The first is from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich. He says that when he agreed to support the Bill he was anxious to get employment for his constituents. For that reason, he helped to get Lord Lauderdale's Bill on to the statute book. My hon. Friend went on to say in his letter that he had tried very hard, with Lord Lauderdale, over the past 12 years to find a company which would come up with financial backing. He said:
We had many feasibility studies done by many companies including Japanese companies but they found that the scheme was quite unworkable.
The original legislation was drafted"—

Mr. McQuarrie: If a feasibility study has been done by the Japanese, has that study been seen at any time by the Earlpar company, which owns the land on which the project was undertaken?

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. Nothing was shown to the Earlpar company, because the scheme was regarded by the Japanese friends whom I approached as an impossible scheme in which to invest.

Mr. Amess: I am grateful for that assistance. I hope that that answers the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie).
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich went on to say in his letter:
The original legislation was drafted in such a way that it would have taken 15 years to get any financial return. The scheme was seen to be over ambitious.
My hon. Friend said that, to his great disappointment,
no investor could be attracted.
The net result was that the Bill was not worth the paper on which it was written. It was a bitter pill for the people of Harwich, who so desperately need employment opportunities. My hon. Friend expressed his great pleasure at the fact that, after 12 years of devastating frustration, Sealink, under its new ownership, had said that it wanted to invest in Harwich.
My hon. Friend also drew my attention to the fact that the impression was given that a British company was, and


still is, willing to invest. The company had 12 years in which to do that, but it came up with absolutely nothing. Naturally, my hon. Friend asked for support.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend inform the House of his understanding of the impediment to development which resulted from section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964? He has been making some play of the fact that nothing has happened. Would he care to comment on that important aspect?

Sir Julian Ridsdale: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. That was not the position. The Harbours Act was not a barrier in any way. Essex county council had experience in negotiating with the company. The chairman of Essex county council wrote to me in the following terms:
For your personal information, our experience over 10 years of negotiation with Earlpar and their Chairman, Lord Lauderdale, was that their scheme was overambitious and not practical in that it never received any financial backing. The Sea Containers scheme on the other hand was wholly different in that it sought to develop the Bay by incremental stages.
The Bill's opponents are introducing red herrings. I am sure that my hon. Friend will he able to substantiate that.

Mr. Amess: I am grateful for that comment. I hope that it answers the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend, having listened carefully to the previous intervention, turn his mind to the fact that there is legislation on the statute book? There was an impediment. but that has been removed. Does my hon. Friend not think that that substantially changes the position about any fund raising that may be attempted?

Mr. Amess: I do not think that that changes the position substantially. That is a matter that we can develop later.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) referred to Mr. Sherwood. He said that letters had been signed on his behalf and that he appeared not to be in the country. I can tell the House that Mr. Sherwood was in my constituency seven weeks ago to open the business and industry exhibition sponsored by Essex county council. The exhibition was held to promote Essex and to produce more employment opportunities. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will accept that Mr. Sherwood is trying to create more employment opportunities in Essex.
I draw the attention of the House to another letter which we should consider. It is from the chairman of the Essex county council, Mr. Bill Dixon-Smith, who said:
I cannot emphasise too strongly how important the proposed development at Bathside Bay is to the County Council as a whole and the economy of the County".
My right hon.Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) mentioned that earlier.
In co-operation with Sea Containers, as the new owners of Bathside Bay in 1984, the County Council carried out a reclamation scheme of the Bay which will enable us to construct the Dovercourt By-pass and, equally important, enable Sea Containers to proceed with their port development and expansion once they have obtained parliamentary powers.

Mr. Fairbairn: Was the letter written with the authority of the council? Does it appear in the council's minutes? If not, why is my hon. Friend referring to it?

Mr. Amess: The letter was not marked "private and confidential". It was sent to each of the 15 Essex Members

of Parliament. I am sure that the chairman of the council would wish me to bring the matter to the attention of the House. We are discussing a matter of prime importance to Essex. All Essex Members support the Bill, because we wish to create further employment opportunities.
The chairman of the county council continued:
over 10 years of negotiations with Earlpar, … their scheme was overambitious and not practical, in that it never received any financial backing. The Sea Containers scheme, on the other hand, was wholly different, in that it sought to develop the Bay by incremental stages. We would not, therefore, agree with the opponents to the Bill who are alleging that Sea Containers are seeking to adopt the expertise of the Earlpar scheme without proper acknowledgement.

Mr. McQuarrie: I must correct my hon. Friend about funding. It was said in the debate on 28 April that a substantial firm had offered to fund the Earlpar development and that the information had been made known to Sealink prior to that debate on 28 April.

Mr. Amess: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and I hope that we can discuss it in Committee.
To the south of the port area there will be a substantial piece of land suitable for industrial and commercial use, which has already attracted the attention of major companies, which have expressed an interest in setting up factories on the site. Implementation, in association with the construction of stage two of the Dovercourt bypass, would ensure adequate road access.
As I mentioned earlier, all Essex Members——

Mr. McQuarrie: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I put it to you that it is a disgrace and an abuse of the House to accept the closure after less than three quarters of an hour's further debate, since the sponsors failed to get the closure last time? Clearly some hon. Members wish to raise points concerning, in particular, questions of procedure, which, indeed, I raised earlier on a point of order. It seems unfair that the closure should be accepted after such a short debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House that we have debated this Bill before, and that this is a resumed debate.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure you will accept that on that occasion the House decided that it did not want the closure and that it wanted further debate. To accept, after only three quarters of an hour——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the lion. Gentleman to make his point, but this is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. The Chair has exercised its absolute discretion, and I do not think that any point of order can arise.
Will the Serjeant at Arms please check to see what is causing the delay in the Lobbies?
Will the Tellers please take their places before the Table?

The House having divided: Ayes 223, Noes 43.

Division No. 197]
[8.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Amess, David
Grist, Ian


Ancram, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Ashby, David
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harris, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Haselhurst, Alan


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Baldry, Tony
Hawksley, Warren


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hayes, J.


Batiste, Spencer
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hayward, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Heddle, John


Bellingham, Henry
Hicks, Robert


Benyon, William
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Best, Keith
Hind, Kenneth


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Home Robertson, John


Blackburn, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Body, Sir Richard
Howard, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Howells, Geraint


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunter, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Irving, Charles


Bruinvels, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Burt, Alistair
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butcher, John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Knowles, Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lang, Ian


Cartwright, John
Latham, Michael


Cash, William
Lawler, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Churchill, W. S.
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lightbown, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lilley, Peter


Clegg, Sir Walter
Livsey, Richard


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon
Lord, Michael


Cope, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Couchman, James
McCrindle, Robert


Crouch, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Currie, Mrs Edwina
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Dalyell, Tam
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Dewar, Donald
Maclean, David John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
McLoughlin, Patrick


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Emery, Sir Peter
McQuarrie, Albert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
McWilliam, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Madel, David


Favell, Anthony
Major, John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Malone, Gerald


Forman, Nigel
Marek, Dr John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mates, Michael


Forth, Eric
Mather, Carol


Fox, Marcus
Maude, Hon Francis


Franks, Cecil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fry, Peter
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Galley, Roy
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Moate, Roger


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gow, Ian
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Moynihan, Hon C.


Gregory, Conal
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Newton, Tony





Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Norris, Steven
Stern, Michael


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Pawsey, James
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Pollock, Alexander
Temple-Morris, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Powley, John
Thornton, Malcolm


Proctor, K. Harvey
Thurnham, Peter


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waddington, David


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wallace, James


Roe, Mrs Marion
Waller, Gary


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Watson, John


Rost, Peter
Watts, John


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Weetch, Ken


Ryder, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wheeler, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Whitfield, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Speed, Keith
Younger, Rt Hon George


Speller, Tony



Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Alex Fletcher and Mr. Bill Walker.


Squire, Robin



Steel, Rt Hon David





NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Leighton, Ronald


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boyes, Roland
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Clarke, Thomas
Maynard, Miss Joan


Clay, Robert
Michie, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Conlan, Bernard
Nellist, David


Corbett, Robin
O'Brien, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Patchett, Terry


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge Hl)
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Soley, Clive


Eastham, Ken
Straw, Jack


Faulds, Andrew
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Tinn, James


Forrester, John



Gourlay, Harry
Tellers for the Noes:


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Robert Litherland.


Hoyle, Douglas



John, Brynmor

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the main Question, I remind the House that the Chair deprecates any tactics designed to delay the procedures of the House, and that the dealying of a Division resiult is an offence for which Members can be named.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

Mr. Pike: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We were forced to vote at an early stage of the previous debate, when many hon. Members


still wished to speak, having come into the Chamber for the debate. Two of my colleagues and I were still trying to raise the issue in the Lobby—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This matter has already been raised and the Chair has ruled on it. These matters are within the discretion of the Chair and should not be challenged.

Mr. Pike: (seated and covered): The House is covered by established precedents, and on a previous occasion a similar event occurred when—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not challenge my ruling. I have ruled, and that is the end of the matter.

The House having divided: Ayes 225, Noes 30.

Division No. 198]
[8.45 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Amess, David
Favell, Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Forth, Eric


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Fox, Marcus


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Baldry, Tony
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Galley, Roy


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Beith, A. J.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Benyon, William
Gow, Ian


Best, Keith
Gower, Sir Raymond


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gregory, Conal


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Body, Sir Richard
Grist, Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hawksley, Warren


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Hickmet, Richard


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hind, Kenneth


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cash, William
Howard, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Conlan, Bernard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jackson, Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Dewar, Donald
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Dobson, Frank
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lamont, Norman





Lang, Ian
Ryder, Richard


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Litherland, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Livsey, Richard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Lord, Michael
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McCrindle, Robert
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Maclean, David John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Steel, Rt Hon David


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Steen, Anthony


McWilliam, John
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Major, John
Stott, Roger


Malone, Gerald
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marek, Dr John
Straw, Jack


Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Trotter, Neville


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
van Straubenzee, SirW.


Moore, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Waddington, David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Moynihan, Hon C.
Wallace, James


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Newton, Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Watson, John


Norris, Steven
Watts, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Weetch, Ken


Patchett, Terry
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Pawsey, James
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wheeler, John


Pike, Peter
Whitfield, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Winnick, David


Powley, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winterton, Nicholas


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wolfson, Mark


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wood, Timothy


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Sir Julian Ridsdale and Mr. Robert Rhodes James.


Rumbold, Mrs Angela





NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Boyes, Roland
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clay, Robert
McQuarrie, Albert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
O'Brien, William


Couchman, James
Pollock, Alexander


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Donald
Speed, Keith


Eastham, Ken
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Fairbairn, Nicholas



Fatchett, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Mr. Alex Fletcher and Mr. Bill Walker.


Lawrence, Ivan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

9 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of the debate on private business I raised with Mr. Speaker a question of procedure on that business. You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that during the debate on the quorum for the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill you gave an undertaking from the Treasury Bench that you would be setting up an inquiry into the private Bill procedure. It was clear that the House had been caused considerable concern and I am sure that you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the proceedings this evening will cause even more concern.
The normal procedure for a promoter of a private Bill is to start by trying to get the Bill through without opposition at 2.30 pm. If he fails in that aim, he tries to obtain a three-hour debate on a subsequent evening. Normally, there would be a closure motion and a majority would be gained for the Bill to proceed. It is a little unusual for an extra debate to be gained if there is a failure to secure the closure.
You have heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is some disappointment on the Opposition Benches that you accepted a closure motion after such a short debate on the previous business. I do not query that, but I suggest that this is a matter that should be considered during the inquiry that is held into the private Bill procedure. If the procedure is examined, some of the less desirable aspects of debates that have taken place in the recent past might be avoided. Now that you have had a chance to reflect on that request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps you will make a statement to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) for his assurance that, despite his reservations, he is not challenging my decision of this evening. I am grateful to him also for having given me notice that he intended to raise the matter. I am glad to tell him that since I informed the House on 12 February that I wished to initiate a review of private Bill procedures I have been engaged in active consultation with both the Chairman of Committees in another place, Lord Aberdare, and the Leader of the House. As a result of those consultations, I anticipate that an appropriate motion will shortly be tabled. As it will have to be a Government motion rather than a motion in my name, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue any question on its contents and its timing he will have to address it to the Leader of the House.

British Railways (Stansted) Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[24 February]—That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I wish, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise a principle that perhaps lies outside the debate. The House has a resumed debate before it, there have been significant developments and there is a clear desire on the part of Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the debate. Some of us have already contributed to it and on occasion it is the practice of the House to grant Members a second opportunity to speak, should the House feel so moved. Can you advise me and the rest of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in what circumstances a second opportunity to speak is possible, given the great pace of developments and the importance of having a thorough debate this evening?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the House. If the hon. Gentleman seeks the leave of the House to speak again on the same matter and the House grants him leave, he will be given the opportunity to do so. If the House withholds its permission, the matter is out of my hands.

Mr. Peter Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker at the start of private business and he advised me to raise it again at the start of the debate on the Bill as the point was specific to it.
In the Vote Office I was handed with the Bill a statement from British Rail on the British Railways (Stansted) Bill—a statement by the promoters—on why they believe the Bill should be given a Second Reading. I am raising a serious matter because I believe that the final paragraph of the statement misleads the House. It is an abuse of the House for the Bill to be proceeded with in this way. The statement refers to the debate on 24 February and states:
Since then, the Board have made strenuous efforts to satisfy those hon. Members who opposed the Bill.
That is untrue and incorrect. That statement by British Rail will mislead hon. Members. It would be appropriate for the promoters to withdraw the Bill tonight to allow that statement to be corrected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me. It is for the House to take into account when it makes its decision on the Question that will be put before the House. It is a matter for debate.

Mr. Fred Silvester: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the point raised by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is germane, and as the supposed attempts to satisfy the objectors to the Bill have not been made, the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) about being able to speak again in the debate clearly is important. You kindly said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that was a matter for the House. I take it that we should begin by making an appeal to you. Is that the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is the case.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thank you


for your statement. May I reiterate the point of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd)? My hon. Friend spoke about the ability of hon. Members to catch your eye for a second time. I am sure you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is likely to be new information introduced into the debate. I remind you that a considerable number of hon. Members were unable to catch your eye on the last occasion that the matter was debated. I hope that you will give fairly careful consideration to the possibility of a closure when it is obvious that new matters will be introduced. There is already a considerable list of hon. Members from the last debate on this matter who want to express their point of view, some who wish to raise constituency points and others who feel that because of the new information put forward they ought to be able again to express their points of view.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that of course the Chair, when considering who should be called to participate in the debate, will have regard to those who have not had the opportunity to address the House. It might be helpful if we could get on with the debate, otherwise very few hon. Members will have the chance to participate.

Dr. John Marek: I have been waiting patiently to continue my speech which was interrupted by the closure motion. The House will remember that only about 60 hon. Members voted for closure and 30 hon. Members were against. I know that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. I am sure that many Conservative Members also wish to take part, and I understand that the Minister wants to speak.
This is a very important debate and we should not rush into premature conclusions. Without wishing to question or contradict your decision in any way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rose at six or even seven minutes past 9 o'clock and the Clerk did not read the business until two minutes past 9 so at the most we will have 58 minutes for the debate if one takes the time from when the Clerk read the business or perhaps only 54 minutes to debate an important Bill.
This Bill will affect constituents in the north-west of England and my constituents in Wrexham in Wales as Wrexham is very close to Manchester. I understand why British Rail wishes to build the link to Stansted. Let me put my cards on the table. I am not against British Rail building a railway link to Stansted. That is very laudable. Unfortunately, I have to oppose the Bill because British Rail is building the link at the expense of building a link to Manchester, or building or repairing other railways or improving other lines to make them quicker and more efficient. British Rail could do that if the money was available, but if it spends money on the Stansted link there will be less money to improve services elsewhere.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): indicated dissent.

Dr. Marek: I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in due course.
My experience of British Rail's policies over the past five or six years is that there is always a lack of money, so much so that one line has been taken up between Wrexham and Chester, leaving a single track, because British Rail could do other things with the metal from that

line. Incidentally, there is now a much worse service between Wrexham and Chester. If the Bill were not passed and the money were made available for something else, British Rail could undo some of the damage that it has done and restore the double track between Wrexham and Chester.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister seems to dissent from the view that British Rail has a measure of choice in its capital projects. The Minister and my hon. Friend know far more about the railway system than I do, but am I right in thinking that British Rail is governed by the external financing limit? If so, if this money were not spent on Stansted and the external financing limit remained the same, those moneys would be made available for the project that my hon. Friend is talking about.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes the case. That is the position as I understand it. If money was not spent on building the line to Stansted, that money would be available for spending elsewhere. I have not yet had a chance to talk about the merits of such a line or the number of passengers who will use it and the subsidies that Stansted receives.
British Rail could provide a link to Manchester airport. which is in a central position. In many ways London is not central. It is not central for me, nor for my hon. Friend. Manchester is far more central and far better placed to spend that money. Many people from the midlands who wish to go on holiday could easily go to Manchester from Birmingham. Trains could be provided from the midlands to Crewe and then to Wilmslow and if the Manchester link were built on the Styal line passengers from the midlands, north Wales, the north-west and the north of England could easily use Manchester airport instead of Stansted.
I would not be surprised if many hon. Members did not know exactly where Stansted was. I do not really know where it is. I know roughly within an area of five or 10 miles, but it is almost impossible to get to. I imagine that if most people from the midlands and the north could not use Manchester they would have to go by train to Euston. then make a difficult journey on the underground or take a taxi or bus to Liverpool street and then on to Stansted. That is not the best way of proceeding.

Mr. Roger Stott: My hon. Friend is talking about the potential traffic that could be generated from the midlands to Manchester airport. I am sure that he will be as aware as I am of British Rail's interest in developing the Castlefield curve and the Windsor link in Manchester. It would open up the north of England, east and west, direct by train through Manchester to a possible Manchester airport link. So we are not just talking about the amount of traffic that could be generated from the midlands. With British Rail's firm proposals on the Castlefield curve and the Windsor link, Yorkshire and the north of England are being opened up to Manchester airport.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend makes a vital point. The money that would be spent on Stansted could be spent on other areas which would benefit many more people and would make travel and transport much more convenient.
It is a pity that the Government have chosen their aviation policy and have decided that Stansted should become a sort of third charter airport. It will always be an ailing lame duck and will always have to receive subsidies


from Gatwick or Heathrow. The Government should look at this again and ask themselves what can be done to help the majority of our people, and what can be done to help the railway system at the same time. If they did that, they would certainly not decide to spend the money on this railway line, this little spur fom Stansted airport.

Mr. Don Dixon: It is not only Manchester on which money should be spent; money should also be spent on the important airport at Newcastle. If the Government were to make finance available to extend the Tyne and Wear metro to Newcastle airport, it would be money well invested and would be better than investing at Stansted.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) makes a valid and pertinent point.
I hope that the Government and the promoters of the Bill and British Rail will take note of the disquiet on this side of the House. This is only the Second Reading and there are many more stages to go. Unless there is some movement by somebody somewhere about spending money on the things that we want for the benefit of our constituents, this measure will be fought to the bitter end. The Government are in the run-up to the next general election and all sorts of things have been known to happen during such a period. Discussion on Bills like this could go on and on. I am not accusing the Minister of being intransigent—not at this stage, anyway—and I shall listen with interest to what he says.

Mr. Tony Favell: Is it not remarkable that there is not one hon. Member whose constituents are in favour of the Stansted link? There does not appear to be anybody who wants it. The only people concerned about it are the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and me, and we are anxious about the link to Manchester airport.

Dr. Marek: I am grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell). They reinforce what I have been saying and show that there is a certain amount of cross-party feeling on this important issue.
Let me give one more example of what British Rail could spend the money on if it did not spend it on the Stansted link. It could spend the money on making automatic open level crossings a bit safer. There was a crash a few days ago between Wrexham and Chester in which one person was killed. I understand that there was another crash at an automatic open level crossing a few days ago in Ammanford. Thank goodnes nobody was killed in that crash, but it was still another accident. I have heard of a number of accidents on the automatic open level crossing outside Aberystwyth which carries the Aberystwyth to Devil's Bridge line across one of the A class roads. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is a toy railway".] It is not quite a toy railway. The engine that ploughed into an articulted lorry the other day weighed 20 tons. It was fortunate that in that instance nobody was killed.
The regulations were recently relaxed a little by this Administration. I wonder whether they were relaxed too much or whether it was just coincidence and that there was no relationship between that relaxation and those accidents.
I do not want to stray from the debate, but it is important to say that there are things that British Rail could do. Without doubt, I could speak about those things for

two or three hours and give the House examples of what should be done but is not being done. One thing British Rail should not do is build this line to Stansted. It is not needed. There are other airports such as those at Newcastle, Manchester and Teesside, indeed all over Britain, that are far more convenient for our people, yet an airport at Stansted is to be foisted on us. Nobody knows where it is. It will be an ailing duck, and will have all this extra capital expenditure out of sums badly needed by British Rail. It is a mistake, and I hope that the Bill does not get a Second Reading. I hope that, because of the lack of time, we will not be able to come to a decision about whether to give it a Second Reading. It might be found expedient to put it down for debate on another day to conclude the debate. We cannot conclude the debate now.

Mr. Alfred Morris: It disappoints me that, with other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am forced to oppose a Bill that is promoted by British Rail. Oppose it we must, however, in the interests of what is by common consent one of the few major growth points outside the south-east of England. I refer, as the Minister of State knows, to Manchester airport.
The Minister has suggested that the Bill is of no relevance to Manchester airport, but that is not how we see it, and his suggestion is in fact wholly untenable. On 14 May the Minister met, at the Department of Transport, representatives of Manchester Airport plc, the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and British Rail. The meeting was chaired by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), then the Secretary of State for Transport, who made a similar suggestion. I must, therefore, relate to the House the reply that I made to the former Secretary of State at that meeting. Last year's White Paper on airports policy in paragraph 6.33 promised that the Government would consider the rail link to Manchester airport on the same terms as the rail link to Stansted airport. Until that undertaking has been honoured, and is seen to be honoured, the House should not allow this Bill to proceed.
In spite of repeated assurances, the last of which was given at the meeting on 14 May, British Rail has still not made publicly available the details of the investment bid for the Stansted link. The revenue forecasts, and the assumptions employed on traffic generation, are unknown to me and to the House. It is argued that this is commercially confidential information. Yet how can this be so when the main parties — British Rail and the British Airports Authority—are, for the time being at least, public corporations? Such an argument is clearly unacceptable.
Details of the work undertaken on the Manchester link are available for public scrutiny. It consists of a series of technical papers explaining the alignment, the construction and the operational costs of the proposed link. It shows that the estimated capital costs of construction are £15 million. The revenue forecasts range from £13·8 million at the low end — if only 4 per cent. of the airport's passengers used the rail link—to £26·3 million at the top end—that is if 7 per cent. of passengers used the link. At the low end, which all the parties agree is the worst possible case, the rail link would be unprofitable. At the top end it would more than pay its way.
There is also the question of funding. One has to look beyond the technical papers——

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will my right hon. Friend accept that British Rail's unspoken fear is that if it puts the link into Manchester airport that will take work away from other links? The north-west is pleased that British Rail has increased the number of through trains to Gatwick from the Manchester area. However, the problem is that British Rail is not taking into account the likelihood of attracting additional trade from the rest of the country to Manchester. It is taking into account only the possibility of losing trade on its rail links to London and the south.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend endorses the suspicion of many other people and raises an important point.
As to funding, one has to look beyond the technical papers for information and, in particular, to a covering letter addressed to the Secretary of State for Transport and signed by the chairmen of British Rail, Manchester Airport plc and the Greater Manchester PTA. The letter pointed out that the estimated construction costs of the link—£15 million—will not be fully borne by British Rail, which believes such an investment to be too risky. While British Rail has said that it will make a capital contribution towards the cost of the Manchester rail link, the figure suggested—£5million—equates with the lowest point on the forecast revenues. Yet British Rail ought, in my view, to accept that the revenues derived will he a reflection of the efforts that it expends in marketing the facility. The better and more vigorous the marketing, the higher the usage and the revenues. This was put to the chairman of British Rail in my presence and that of the Minister of State at the recent meeting at the Department of Transport. I have no evidence yet that the chairman accepts what virtually everyone else associated with the proposed rail link to Manchester airport regards as self-evidently true.
Manchester Airport plc and the Greater Manchester PTA, while seeing the link as a commercial opportunity, are prepared to play their full part in achieving this important new facility for the north-west, but this cannot be done at the cost of prejudicing their own ordinary investment programmes. The board of Manchester Airport plc is not a railway company. It must devote is efforts to the future development of the airport. The PTA is in a desperate financial position. It is now having to grapple with the daunting task of trying to keep the basic public transport network together, within a ludicrously inadequate expenditure limit. The development of any part of the system, at a time when the PTA does not know how much money it will receive to spend on public transport next year, is plainly unrealistic. So it is clear that unless British Rail, which is manifestly so keen to proceed with the Stansted link, takes a less gloomy and more realistic attitude to Manchester's case, our rail link may be indefinitely delayed. That would be a tragedy, not only for Manchester airport, but for the region as a whole.

Mr. Robert Litherland: In last year's White Paper on airports policy the Government promised that they would consider the cases for developing the rail links to Stansted and Manchester airports on equal terms. This is not coming about. All that we are seeing is a lack of enthusiasm for Manchester.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend quotes the White Paper accurately. I entirely agree with him, as I shall explain when proceeding with my speech.
Manchester airport is the fastest growing airport in Europe, but its success has been hard won. Maintaining that success will demand even greater efforts than those already made by the people—thousands of them my constituents—who operate and manage the airport. It will be forced to compete with a subsidised Stansted. Nearly £300 million needs to be found to support the anticipated growth of Manchester airport over the next 10 years. The airport must become more accessible if that growth is to be realised. At the present time accessibility by road is one of the airport's main advantages, with a direct link to the M56 providing access to the national motorway network. The airport is not, however, well served by public transport. Only local bus services connect the airport with neighbouring towns and suburbs. Passengers travelling by rail have to travel to Manchester city centre and make use of an express bus link to get to the airport. Although the airport lies adjacent to the rail network, there is no connection and the nearest station is some 2 miles from the terminal buildings. It is vital to the future development of the airport that a rail link is provided to coincide with the development of a second terminal by the early 1990s.
Such a link would clearly stimulate growth. It would also greatly relieve the otherwise inevitable pressure that will build on the road network and for car parking facilities. We have all seen the results of lack of action at Heathrow and the necessity for urgent and very expensive action to rectify its problems. The people of Greater Manchester do not want to see the same problems at their airport. It is an asset of the first importance in creating new employment opportunities in a part of the country where unemployment is unacceptably high and youth unemployment a total scandal, if that word still has any meaning in contemporary Britain.
I make a plea to the Minister: have a quiet and urgent word with the chairman of British Rail and end forthwith the costly delay that we face in respect of the Manchester rail link. The Government have a responsibility to see the Manchester link go ahead. It would fit in with the aviation objectives about which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) pointed out, they talk long and often enough. It would also coincide with their other stated objective to disperse tourist activities throughout the country. If British Rail becomes more enthusiastic and constructive, the link will happen. The message tonight from this House is that until British Rail demonstrates such an attitude, it ought not reasonably to expect the Stansted Bill to pass.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): If may have the leave of the House to speak again, I am grateful for the opportunity. Given the concern that has been expressed this evening about the board's investment proposal for a link to Stansted and about the case for a link to Manchester airport, it might assist the House if I describe briefly what developments there have been since the debate on the Bill on 24 February.
The board submitted its investment proposal for a Stansted rail link in November last year. The board believes that there is a robust financial case for a link.


Following discussions at Rail house and with hon. Members, the board has said that it intends to make a small change in its proposal and to invest in new rolling stock for a fast airport service rather than use existing and refurbished stock for the link service. We shall need to examine the board's amended proposal according to our normal investment appraisal pattern. I hope to be in a position then to announce a decision on that investment proposal in relation to Stansted.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister has made a point about a change in the board's proposal. I understand that that may not be unrelated to the withdrawal of certain names from the blocking motion. However, it is up to individual hon. Members to sort out their views. Will the Minister confirm that British Rail promised, not once but several times, that it would make available to those concerned in Manchester the financial details of the Stansted link? Despite those assurances, we are still awaiting that information. Does he seriously expect us to accept the Bill in its present form without that information having been made available?

Mr. Mitchell: British Rail is a commercial organisation and, as such, its commercial information has a certain value. It has been given to Ministers in the preparation by British Rail of the case for the service to Stansted. We have not yet finished examining the viability of the case that British Rail has put to us. When we have done so, we shall certainly make an announcement. I share with the hon. Gentleman the view that the same criteria should apply to the Government's examination of any proposals in relation to Manchester as apply to proposals for Stansted.

Mr. Silvester: Will my hon. Friend note that a senior member of British Rail informed me that there was no difficulty in making available to us the calculations in regard to Stansted so that we could make the comparison with Manchester? We are still in the position that that information has not been given to us. In the current atmosphere of distrust it is impossible for us to make a rational decision about the Bill until that information is available. Why are we told one thing privately and another thing publicly?

Mr. Mitchell: Conversations that have taken place with members of the staff of British Rail are matters for British Rail and for the hon. Members who have had those discussions; they are not matters for me.
It may be helpful if I explain to the House some developments that have occurred since the House last discussed the matter in relation to Manchester. On 10 April British Rail, Greater Manchester passenger transport authority and the airport company wrote jointly to the Secretary of State, summarising the conclusions reached so far on the financial case for the Manchester rail link.
The parties requested a meeting to discuss the financing of the rail link and that took place on 14 May. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) were present. The parties have agreed to examine further the scope for contribution towards the cost of the scheme and to seek a further meeting with the Secretary of State when they have done

so. I can assure the House that there will be careful and fair assessment at that further meeting of the case which may be put by those who are coming to see the Secretary of State and myself.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: For fear that he may inadvertently be in danger of misleading the House, will the Minister confirm that the agreement to come back to the Secretary of State was made not in the sense that an agreement was struck at that meeting or subsequently but simply because a total impasse had been reached and, in order to have any hope of progress, it was necessary to agree to a future meeting? Will the Minister confirm that that is an accurate picture?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman may put his own interpretation upon the reasons which led the parties at the meeting to agree to withdraw to consider further and to meet again. All I am saying is that that is the stage to which matters have now proceeded.
I anticipate that there will be a further meeting at which we shall of course want as full, frank and open a discussion as possible about the information which will then be available. The information may arise from further work by British Rail or from the views as to contributions by the various parties. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe believes that there is a prospect of much higher usage of the Manchester link leading to a much better financial return than British Rail expects. If that is right, it may be that there will be those who will wish to participate in such enhanced profits and be prepared to put up the money to have the opportunity of sharing in such profits. I do not know. That is a matter for the parties to discuss.
It is quite phoney to link the schemes for Manchester and Stansted because a proposition has been made by British Rail for investment in Stansted. We are considering that. We shall appraise it and make a decision on its merits. We shall then consider the issue of Manchester and, again, we shall consider that and judge it on its merits. That must be the right and proper way in which to proceed.

Mr. Jack Straw: I have heard the Minister on many occasions, along with colleagues on the Treasury Bench, saying that there is a competition for resources. Is he now saying that there is no competition for resources and that there are no choices to be faced in terms of public expenditure? I do not understand his point.

Mr. Mitchell: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that competition for resources does not arise in this case. The hon. Member for Wrexhank(Dr. Marek) was unusually ill-informed in suggesting that there was some competition between the resources for Stansted and the resources for double-lining the railway line, which is one of his hobby horses. The fact is that the expenditure on Stansted will be approved only if it shows a full commercial return. If the Manchester scheme shows a commercial return it, too, will be approved. I am asked whether the acceptance of a Stansted scheme, if the Government approve the submission from British Rail, removes the availability of resources for other investment. The answer is no, because it is fully commercially viable. It is not part of a subsidised network, but a fully commercial investment which will not eat into the availability of resources elsewhere.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties for the people


in the north-west is that they feel that if a decision is made separately and on its own merits for Stansted before a decision is made for Manchester it could draw traffic from Manchester and reduce the viability of the subsequent decision for Manchester?

Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is not so. The time scale is such that the people from the north-west who come to see the Secretary of State will return within a relatively short time to see how much further they have got with their discussions. That will be long before construction work can start on Stansted. Therefore, there is no question of Stansted being able to draw traffic from Manchester before there has been a proper assessment of the Manchester opportunity.

Mr. Favell: How will my hon. Friend deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that British Rail will move heaven and earth to prevent the rail link at Manchester airport because it fears the competition from Manchester airport to London on the commuter services against its inter-city services, which are already under heavy strain because of competition from Manchester airport? British Rail has a vested interest in preventing that link. Stansted is a completely different matter because it will deal with charter flight traffic, not commuter traffic. Consequently, British Rail will move heaven and earth to prevent the Manchester airport link. How will my hon. Friend deal with that?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Stansted is different. That is why it is right that we should examine the two different propositions separately. My hon. Friend suggested that British Rail would not wish to see a link to Manchester airport, but that is not my impression from talking to British Rail management. If there is a viable proposition, both I and, I understand, British Rail are as keen as possible to secure it.

Mr. Favell: May I remind my hon. Friend that last year 500,000 passengers flew from Stansted and 5 million from Manchester? Why on earth should it be commercially viable to serve 500,000 passengers but not 5 million?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend should know that part of the assessment of Stansted is the fact that it is directly linked to London. A huge proportion of passengers who will use Stansted will come from London, just as a huge proportion go to Heathrow and Gatwick. The catchment area for Manchester is far more diffuse. There is not an overwhelming proportion of passengers who will go direct from Manchester city to the airport. They will come from many different directions. That is part of the difference in the proportion of passengers who will be carried, and is a factor in the assessment. It is not for me to make the assessment, but for British Rail to exercise its commercial judgment. I shall welcome its proposition, providing it is viable.
British Rail has said that it is prepared to invest £5 million because it sees that as a commercial contribution. If others are prepared to invest the balance and put their money where their mouths are, I can see some prospect for progress.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the Minister at least agree that it is grossly pessimistic of British Rail to assume that as few as four in 100 of Manchester airport's passengers will use the rail link? It is all eagerness about Stansted and

all hesitation about the proposed rail link to Manchester. That is what upsets hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Mitchell: I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that one needs to look searchingly at the figures. It is right and proper that the parties who will reconsider the question, following the meeting which was held with the previous Secretary of State for Transport, look closely at the figures and at the justification for them. When the group returns to meet me and my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Transport, I can assure the tight hon. Gentleman that we shall give as thorough an examination as possible of all the figures. Furthermore, I give him the positive assurance that, in any assessment of an investment proposition from British Rail, we shall apply identical criteria of financial return required for Manchester as for Stansted.

Mr. Silvester: I dashed out to get a copy of the letter which the Minister sent to me on 2 June about the meeting on 14 May. I should be grateful if he could clarify exactly what the position is. It seems to me that the letter says something different from what the Minister implied in his reply to the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister said in his letter:
British Rail have said that million is the most they could justify in investing in the rail link.
We understand that. The question is whether British Rail is required to re-investigate and move from that position, or is it just other people who are asked to do so? The letter continued:
The Secretary of State invited the deputation, in the light of their individual assessments of the prospects of the scheme, to consider the financial contribution they were prepared to make.
Does that mean that British Rail is being asked to reinvestigate its contribution? Why does the Minister keep saying that British Rail, in its commercial judgment, is prepared to put up £5 million and no more, and we must like it or lump it, and that the other two parties must go away and reconsider their position? That is the crux of the debate. I believe that British Rail has every commercial justification for putting up a minimum of £7·5 million. I cannot see how any rational judgment of the revenue of the line could counter that statement. There has been no movement from Sir Bob Reid. If the matter is to he taken seriously, we must have his assurance, and that of the Secretary of State, whom I am pleased to see is in the Chamber, that they are taking the matter to the chairman and will ask him to look at the figures realistically and make a proper assessment of what the line can produce.

Mr. Mitchell: I can give my hon. Friend some reassurance. All the parties are re-examining their contributions. I shall draw tny hon. Friend's point to the attention of the chairman of British Rail, so that when the representatives of the north-west meet the Secretary of State there are on the table figures as full as is consistent with commercial confidence, which demonstrate the basis upon which British Rail has arrived at them.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Government are considering whether the Stansted scheme is viable. They are asking British Rail to consider further the Manchester scheme. Would it not be a good idea to suggest to the promoters that they should defer further consideration of the Bill until decisions are reached? If we waited until decisions were reached, and if there was a clear


undertaking to the House that Stansted and Manchester were to go ahead, a great deal of the House's time could be saved. It seems rather pointless to proceed with the Bill when there are so many ifs and buts.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not want this to become an endless dialogue. I have been allowed to trespass by having an opportunity to speak a second time. While I understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to try to use the British Railways (Stansted) Bill as a lever to secure benefits for Manchester and Manchester airport, the fact of the matter is that they are separate propositions. I have gone a long way to try to ensure that there is absolute fairness in the assessment of each proposition. But it would be quite wrong to pretend that one set of calculations can be in any way related to another.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I have given way quite a few times, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
The House should make its decision about Stansted. We shall have the further meeting to which I have referred in order to look again in more detail at Manchester's case.

Mr. Roger Stott: I listened with great interest to the Minister's speech. However, his Government made two decisions that inexorably led British Rail to consider its position. The previous Secretary of State made both of those decisions. Incidentally, I am happy to welcome the new Secretary of State to the House. Those two decisions were to go ahead with the expansion of Stansted airport, and with a fixed link across the Channel. Both decisions meant that British Rail had to reappraise its investment plans.
Those decisions were made not by British Rail but by the Government. British Rail is responding to the decisions. It has promoted a private Bill to make a link between London and Stansted because the Government gave the go-ahead for Stansted. It is also precepting an enormous amount of its resources in order to provide the infrastructure required to comply with the decision to go ahead with the Channel tunnel. I believe that it will have to spend about £55 million on the Snowhill tunnel, and that is a direct consequence of the Government's decision to have a fixed link.
Those of us who represent constituencies in the north and areas in and around Manchester, which already has an international airport, believe that the Government's decisions on those two issues involving expenditure by British Rail will precept other expenditure elsewhere. I was interested in what the Minister said about reappraising the position. I hope that the position will be reappraised. Unless that happens, the cross-party support on this issue will give the debate on the Stansted link a very bumpy ride.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said that he had had a meeting with the previous Secretary of State on 14 May. That date is important. The chief executive of the metropolitan borough of Wigan received a letter dated the following day, 15 May, from one of the Minister's officials. It is signed by Mr.—I assume that it is Mr.—P. G. Hewett from the Department of Transport. It says:

We understand that British Rail's view is that there is no evidence to support the PTA's and Airport Board's view that there is a commercial case for this project. It is not for the Government to interfere with British Rail's commercial judgment and it is certainly not for the Government to press British Rail to finance a project out of its own resources if they believe it to be inherently risky. British Rail are, we understand, prepared to put up a certain sum of money, amounting to about one third of the cost of the whole project, which they believe is the largest sum that is commercially justifiable for this investment, but it remains open to local authorities in the Manchester area to top up that sum to meet the whole cost of the project.
That letter was written the day after my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members had had a meeting with the former Secretary of State. I do not know whether the civil servant who wrote that letter was involved in that meeting, or whether he was aware of the shifting of the sands.
The Department's view is that it is up to British Rail. British Rail is saying to the Department that it is not commercially viable to have a link between Manchester and its airport. That is nonsense. As my hon. Friends representing constituencies in Manchester and the north-east have said, British Rail has not provided us with the statistical and financial information on which it bases that judgment. It has refused——

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.

Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 136 (Withdrawal of strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question,That strangers do withdraw:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to your attention the fact that the debate started a little after 9 o'clock, the Minister has taken some 20 minutes, and it was obvious that a closure motion would be moved while many Members were still anxious to speak. I felt it necessary, to protect their interests, that the Question on the motion, That strangers do withdraw be put to the House, although I regret doing it in principle. It is a great shame that we have to use such tactics at this stage. I should be grateful if you would say whether, as a result of the motion, it will be possible for a closure motion to be accepted after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for me to put the closure motion after 10 o'clock if this motion goes through, and if the closure motion is moved.

The House having divided: Ayes 17, Noes 226.

Division No. 199]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Atkinson, N, (Tottenham)
Martin, Michael


Caborn, Richard
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Patchett, Terry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Redmond, Martin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Clarke, Thomas
Welsh, Michael


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)



Deakins, Eric
Tellers for the Ayes:


Forrester, John
Mr. Fred Silvester and Mr. Tony Lloyd.


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)



McKelvey, William







NOES


Adley, Robert
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Aitken, Jonathan
Haselhurst, Alan


Amess, David
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hayes, J.


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hayward, Robert


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Henderson, Barry


Baldry, Tony
Hickmet, Richard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hind, Kenneth


Bellingham, Henry
Home Robertson, John


Benyon, William
Howard, Michael


Best, Keith
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howells, Geraint


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hoyle, Douglas


Blackburn, John
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Blair, Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunter, Andrew


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyes, Roland
Jackson, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Brinton, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Bruinvels, Peter
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Key, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Burt, Alistair
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Butcher, John
Knowles, Michael


Butterfill, John
Lamont, Norman


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lawrence, Ivan


Cartwright, John
Leadbitter, Ted


Cash, William
Leighton, Ronald


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lester, Jim


Chope, Christopher
Lightbown, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Livsey, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Clay, Robert
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lord, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lyell, Nicholas


Cohen, Harry
McCrindle, Robert


Conway, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cope, John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Couchman, James
Maclean, David John


Critchley, Julian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Crouch, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McQuarrie, Albert


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Malone, Gerald


Dover, Den
Maples, John


Durant, Tony
Marek, Dr John


Eggar, Tim
Mather, Carol


Emery, Sir Peter
Maude, Hon Francis


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Forth, Eric
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Franks, Cecil
Maynard, Miss Joan


Freeman, Roger
Merchant, Piers


Fry, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gale, Roger
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Galley, Roy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gregory, Conal
Moynihan, Hon C.


Grist, Ian
Neale, Gerrard


Ground, Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Norris, Steven


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hannam, John
Patten, Christopher (Bath)





Pawsey, James
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Portillo, Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Powley, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Price, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thumham, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Trippier, David


Raynsford, Nick
Trotter, Neville


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walden, George


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Ryder, Richard
Waller, Gary


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Warren, Kenneth


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Watts, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shersby, Michael
Whitfield, John


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Raymond


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas


Skinner, Dennis
Wolfson, Mark


Speed, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Derek
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Yeo, Tim


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, Rt Hon John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Noes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: (seated and covered): Mr. Speaker, was it fair to move the closure at this stage when it is clear that on the Opposition side of the House there are a substantial number of hon. Members who wish to continue to debate the issue and when the House agreed in the previous debate not to grant a closure?
It is unfair to force a closure on the House at this stage, as many hon. Members wish to debate the matter. The closure will simply mean that hon. Members will have to return to the issue again on further proceedings on the Bill, whereas had no decision been reached tonight, and had the promoters and other parties concerned been able to reach agreement, we could have made speedy progress.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must take into account the fact that the Bill has previously had three hours of discussion and a further hour this evening. It is well within precedent for me to accept a closure motion at this time.

Mr. Straw: (seated and covered): Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask you what precedent there is for accepting after 10 o'clock a closure on private business which has been scheduled to take place between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock?

Mr. Speaker: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to pages 453 and 454 of "Erskine May", which deal with closures at the projected moment of interruption. The hon. Gentleman will find the precedents set out there.

The House having divided: Ayes 217, Noes 106.

Division No. 200]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Hannam, John


Amess, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Ashby, David
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hayes, J.


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Heddle, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Henderson, Barry


Baldry, Tony
Hickmet, Richard


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Hicks, Robert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bellingham, Henry
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Benyon, William
Howard, Michael


Best, Keith
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Howells, Geraint


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Brinton, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Irving, Charles


Bruinvels, Peter
Jackson, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Butterfill, John
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Key, Robert


Cartwright, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Cash, William
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Knowles, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Knox, David


Churchill, W. S.
Lamont, Norman


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lang, Ian


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Latham, Michael


Conway, Derek
Lawrence, Ivan


Coombs, Simon
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cope, John
Lester, Jim


Crouch, David
Lightbown, David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Livsey, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Tony
Lord, Michael


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Nicholas


Emery, Sir Peter
McCrindle, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fletcher, Alexander
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Maclean, David John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuarrie, Albert


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Galley, Roy
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mather, Carol


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry
Merchant, Piers


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Ground, Patrick
Moore, Rt Hon John


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)





Moynihan, Hon C.
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Neale, Gerrard
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Newton, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Norris, Steven
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Portillo, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Powley, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Trotter, Neville


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rhodes James, Robert
Waddington, David


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wallace, James


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Waller, Gary


Ryder, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Whitney, Raymond


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Nicholas


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wood, Timothy


Speed, Keith
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Spencer, Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanbrook, Ivor



Stanley, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and Mr. Michael Shersby.


Stern, Michael





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fatchett, Derek


Bagier, Gordon A, T.
Faulds, Andrew


Batiste, Spencer
Favell, Anthony


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Forrester, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Franks, Cecil


Blackburn, John
Gould, Bryan


Blair, Anthony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Boyes, Roland
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hay ward, Robert


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Burt, Alistair
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
John, Brynmor


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Clarke, Thomas
Leadbitter, Ted


Clay, Robert
Leighton, Ronald


Clegg, Sir Walter
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David Gordon
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Hugh


Cohen, Harry
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Conlan, Bernard
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
McWilliam, John


Corbett, Robin
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Deakins, Eric
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dixon, Donald
Michie, William


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Eadie, Alex
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Eastham, Ken
Nellist, David


Evans, John (St, Helens N)
O'Brien, William






Park, George
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Patchett, Terry
Thornton, Malcolm


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Pike, Peter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert


Raynsford, Nick
Welsh, Michael


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Whitfield, John


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Silvester, Fred
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spearing, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Strang, Gavin



Straw, Jack
Tellers for the Noes:


Sumberg, David
Mr. Robert Litherland and Mr. Terry Lewis.


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 93.

Division No. 201]
[10.22 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Gale, Roger


Ashby, David
Galley, Roy


Aspinwall, Jack
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
George, Bruce


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gow, Ian


Bellingham, Henry
Gower, Sir Raymond


Benyon, William
Greenway, Harry


Best, Keith
Gregory, Conal


Bevan, David Gilroy
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hanley, Jeremy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Haselhurst, Alan


Brinton, Tim
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayes, J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Browne, John
Heddle, John


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hickmet, Richard


Buck, Sir Antony
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Cartwright, John
Howells, Geraint


Cash, William
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Simon
Irving, Charles


Cope, John
Jackson, Robert


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Durant, Tony
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Key, Robert


Eyre, Sir Reginald
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fletcher, Alexander
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knowles, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, David


Forth, Eric
Lamont, Norman


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lang, Ian


Freeman, Roger
Latham, Michael


Fry, Peter
Lawrence, Ivan





Leadbitter, Ted
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lord, Michael
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David John
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spencer, Derek


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Madel, David
Steen, Anthony


Major, John
Stern, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Townend, John (Brialington)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Moore, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Waddington, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Walden, George


Neale, Gerrard
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Nicholls, Patrick
Wall, Sir Patrick


Norris, Steven
Wallace, James


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Waller, Gary


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Pawsey, James
Warren, Kenneth


Powley, John
Watts, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Prescott, John
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Price, Sir David
Whitney, Raymond


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Yeo, Tim


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson and Mr. Michael Shersby.


Roe, Mrs Marion



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Deakins, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Dixon, Donald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dover, Den


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alex


Blackburn, John
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Anthony
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Favell, Anthony


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Frank (Birkennead)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Fields, T. (L 'pool Broad Gn)


Churchill, W. S.
Forrester, John


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foster, Derek


Clarke, Thomas
Franks, Cecil


Clay, Robert
Gould, Bryan


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Clelland, David Gordon
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Haynes, Frank


Cohen, Harry
Hayward, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hoyle, Douglas


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)






Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Patchett, Terry


Lawler, Geoffrey
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Leighton, Ronald
Pike, Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Raynsford, Nick


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Silvester, Fred


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Marek, Dr John
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Straw, Jack


Maxton, John
Sumberg, David


Michie, William
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thornton, Malcolm


Nellist, David
Thurnham, Peter


O'Brien, William
Trippier, David


Park, George
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)





Wareing, Robert
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael



Williams, Rt Hon A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Winnick, David
Mr. Tony Lloyd and Mr. Robert Litherland.


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Winterton, Nicholas

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to the Channel Tunnel Bill (Procedure) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Durant.]

Channel Tunnel Bill (Procedure)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Lord Privy Seal to move the motion, I should inform the House that I have not selected either of the amendments on the Order Paper.
May I also remind the House that the motion is a procedural motion on whether the Standing Orders relating to private business should be dispensed with in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill and on the earliest date for presenting petitions against the Bill? This is not an occasion to canvass the merits of the Bill, which can be fully debated during its Second Reading on Thursday.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far as not complied with in the respect mentioned in the Report of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills relating to that Bill [28th April], be dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed;
That in the event of the Bill being read a second time, the earliest date which, in any motion for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee, may be specified as the date by which a Petition against the Bill must be presented in order to stand referred to the Committee shall be 17th June.
The motion before us tonight would provide for the progress of the Channel Tunnel Bill. As such, it deals with a narrow but highly significant procedural point which has come up rarely over the past 40 years or so.
In these unfamiliar circumstances, I hope that it will be helpful to the House if I begin by saying a few words about the nature of the Bill, and about the Standing Orders referred to in the motion. I then propose to explain briefly why the Bill was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. Lastly, I intend to address the reasons why the Government believe that the Standing Orders should he dispensed with in this instance.
As was the case with earlier legislation dealing with this subject, this Channel Tunnel Bill is hybrid. This means that while it is a public Bill, like any other Bill introduced by a Government, it may in certain respects affect private rights. There is nothing intrinsically unusual or controversial in a hybrid Bill. The House will recall that this Session we have already debated and passed without undue disruption or delay what is now the Museum of London Act 1986, which was hybrid.
What hybridity does mean, however, is that during the Bill's passage it must do more than go through all the stages of a public Bill both here and in another place. Additionally, it must meet certain of the requirements for consideration by Parliament of a Bill affecting private interests. These are set out in the Standing Orders relating to private business.
These Standing Orders are based on the annual cycle for presentation and deposit of private Bills. For this reason, they are set out within clearly defined time disciplines. These require that those seeking to promote a private Bill must present their petition to do so and deposit the Bill in the Private Bill Office on or before 27 November. They must also give notice to affected parties directly, and more generally by placing advertisements in newspapers for two successive weeks on or before 11 December. Those who seek to petition against a private Bill must present their petitions on or before 30 January, following the Bill's deposit some eight weeks before.
This structure for giving notice and for petitioning is designed to help potential petitioners and to ensure that they may have an opportunity of expressing their views effectively, but the structure is not immovable or rigid, and provided that petitioners' rights are protected, its requirements may, on occasion, be waived.
This may be done as follows. If a Bill has failed to comply with the relevant Standing Orders, the Clerks who act as Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills must report to the House any non-compliance, and the matter is then referred to the Standing Orders Committee. This Committee, under the Chairman of Ways and Means, may judge it appropriate to dispense with the Standing Orders which have not been met if this is found to be in the public interest and not unfair to potential petitioners.
I have been referring to private Bills, but the Standing Orders Committee may also have a role in relation to compliance with Standing Orders by a hybrid Bill, since it has a private element. Standing Order 224 relating to private business provides a procedure by which the Examiners decide whether a Bill is hybrid and Standing Orders 4 to 68 should therefore apply to it. These Standing Orders deal with the deposit of the Bill and the giving of notice. If their requirements have not been met, the Examiners must report any non-compliance with them. As when a private Bill has failed to comply with the Standing Orders, the matter then goes to the Standing Orders Committee.
Manifestly, the Channel Tunnel Bill has not been able to meet the date-related provisions of these Standing Orders. On 20 January my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Transport said that legislation would be introduced this Session as soon as possible. Again, the White Paper, which the House approved by 268 votes to 107 on 10 February, stated that it was the Government's aim to bring forward legislation in the spring of this year, as we have done.
It was clear that if we were to carry out our intention which had been approved by the House there would be no possibility of the Bill's being able to comply with Standing Orders as far as dates for deposit and giving notice were concerned. Instead, the Channel Tunnel Bill was given its First Reading on Thursday 17 April, and notice was given in newspapers the following day.
I should add that no difficulty has been made about the form in which the Bill was deposited, or about the form in which notice was given to interested parties and in the newspapers. It is only in respect of date that the Bill could not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
In the light of this non-compliance, the Bill was duly considered by the Examiners and their report was referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The Committee felt that it should be for the House to determine whether Standing Orders should be set aside in this instance. Its report to the House, therefore, stated that the Committee declined to make a recommendation as to whether the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with, and believed that the matter ought to be decided by the House.
Of course, we accept and respect the decision of the Committee. The Channel Tunnel Bill is an unusual, if not unique, piece of legislation, involving both a major measure of public policy and a range of private interests.
I suggested earlier that this was an unusual debate. Just how unusual is evidenced by the thin field of precedents in this area. To find a precedent for the Standing Orders Committee referring a Bill to the House for a decision one


has to go back to the London County Council Tramway and Improvement Bill in 1920. More generally, there are few recent precedents for the Standing Orders Committee considering hybrid Bills. None the less, I am sure the House will wish to take into account the precedents which exist.
In the period since 1953, four late Government hybrid Bills were considered by the Standing Orders Committee. The most recent of these was the Winfrith Heath Bill in 1957. All four Bills had failed to meet the date-related provisions of Standing Orders. In all four cases Standing Orders were dispensed with and the Bill was able to proceed. I should add that there is no record—at any rate in this century — of Standing Orders not being dispensed with in these circumstances in the case of a hybrid Bill.
Valuable though precedent is as a guide in this unfamiliar area, the House, I am sure, would not wish to proceed except on the basis of fair arrangements for those who might wish to oppose the Bill's effects on them. The Government believe that those whose interests may be affected by the Bill should have an opportunity to marshall their arguments effectively, as they would have if affected by a private Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the alternative timetable for petitions suggested in the amendment tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends would still allow the Bill to complete its passage within the 12-month period from then during the next Session of Parliament, and that therefore there would be no constitutional or procedural reason for regarding that as an invalid alternative timetable to allow the Bill to proceed?

Mr. Biffen: I think that it would significantly impede the Bill. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is precisely the matter that may come up on the committal procedure on Thursday. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not pre-empt the debate that will take place then.
In the case of a private Bill, the period for petitioning would be from 4 December to 30 January—about eight weeks. In the case of this Bill, the period would have run from 18 April. The House will note that as part of this motion the Government propose that the latest date by which petitions against the Bill should be required should not be earlier than 17 June. This is to ensure that again there will have been a period of about eight weeks for the petitioners to prepare their case. I believe that this indicates that, far from seeking to stampede this Bill through the House, the Government are concerned that before the closing date the petitioners should have had a time broadly equivalent to that prescribed in Standing Orders.
Furthermore, there can be no likelihood that those who might be affected by the Bill can be unaware of what is planned. Those most concerned will have received direct notice. Those with a more general interest will have seen the advertisements in the newspapers. The general publicity which the plans and their proposed timescale have been accorded since the announcement of 20 January and even earlier has helped to ensure that these will not have been missed. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has held a number of meetings with

organisations concerned, and the Department of Transport has issued a leaflet explaining how to petition against the Bill's effects.
In conclusion, I seek support for this motion on the basis of precedent and of fair provision for petitioners. The arrangement proposed is necessary to allow both the Bill and petitions against it to proceed in an orderly fashion, in accordance with what the House has already approved.

Mr. Peter Shore: The House will be grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for his description and elucidation of hybrid Bill procedures. Despite an uncontroversial presentation of his case, the House should be reminded that we are discussing the Government's latest manoeuvre to push through the Channel Tunnel Bill and to curtail the time available to those who oppose it to present their manifold objections and to mobilise the growing concern outside and inside the House at what the project involves.
As the Lord Privy Seal has reminded us, following the publication of the Channel Tunnel Bill the examiners of private Bills were asked to examine the Bill and to ascertain whether it conformed to the standing orders relating to private business. On 28 April the examiners reported:
that in the case of the above named Bill … certain Standing Orders relating to private business are applicable thereto and have not been complied with in respect of the time prescribed by the Standing Orders for the giving and publishing of notices and the making of deposits.
Since the examiners found that the Bill had not complied with standing orders, the issue was referred to the Standing Orders Committee under the chairmanship of the Chairman of Ways and Means. Its remit was to consider whether in this case the standing orders should be dispensed with, and the Bill allowed to proceed.
Having heard informal evidence from the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), the Committee received statements from the Government agents for the Bill and from agents acting for the Dover Harbour Board and Sealink Ltd., supporting a petition against dispensation of the standing orders. The agents presented their case with substantial verbal statements and were cross-examined by the Committee at its hearing on 20 May. At the end, as the House will know from the special report from the Committee, which was available yesterday, the Committee was evenly divided on the question put to it, and the Chairman declined to use his casting vote. Therefore, the Committee concluded:
That, in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill, the Committee declines to make a recommendation as to whether the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with and believes that this matter ought to be decided by the House.
That is an extraordinary event because the last time a Standing Orders Committee failed to reach a decision on a request for the dispensation of standing orders was in 1920.
Having failed to obtain the Committee's consent to the dispensing of the standing orders, the Government have tabled this motion in which the Leader of the House seeks to enlist the support of the Government's whipped majority for dispensation. No one who has read the Committee's special report can fail to understand why that Committee was placed in such difficulties and why it refused its consent. Although the Committee, in its report to the House, does not explain the grounds for its


determination, "Erskine May" sets out the principles and general rules by which the Committee is guided. I quote from "Erskine May":
broadly speaking the Committee takes into account three questions; first, whether it is in the public interest, apart from that of the promoters, that the Standing Orders should be dispensed with; secondly, whether the promoters have been negligent and, thirdly, to what extent the parties other than the promoters will be adversely affected. According to the general view which it may take of the whole of the circumstances, the Committee will report either that the Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with or that they ought to be dispensed with and parties be permitted (subject or not subject to any conditions) to proceed with their Bill.
From the exchanges that took place in the meeting of the Standing Orders Committee on 20 May, it is reasonably clear that the main concern of the Committee and its members was the public interest and the adverse effects the issue would have on parties other then the promoters. That the Committee should have been faced with those difficulties in coming to a decision is, at root, the major criticism to be made of the Government's handling of the whole issue of the Channel tunnel.
The Channel tunnel is by far the biggest civil engineering work ever contemplated in this country or, we are told, anywhere in Europe. It will have profound effects on the environment, not just in the Cheriton area but in the whole of Kent. It will have major impact on the location of industry and services in the United Kingdom, with a strongly adverse tilt against Scotland, Wales and the northern regions. It will directly affect the Channel ports, the sea ferries and the merchant navy. Its construction raises major questions of safety, security and control.
Yet, in spite of these and other factors, there has been no public inquiry into the project. It is as though the planning legislation of the past 40 years never existed. All that we have had is a report of the Select Committee on Transport and two debates in the House of Commons. The major decisions, both to establish a fixed link across the Channel and to approve the rail link scheme of the Channel Tunnel Group have been taken solely by Ministers and officials in London and Paris.

Mr. David Crouch: The right hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point in saying that Kent will be disadvantaged. As a Kent Member, I entirely agree. Kent will be disadvantaged for a period by the activity involved in building the tunnel. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that Scotland will be disadvantaged by Britain being more closely linked to Europe. He said that because he is anti-Europe. He has fought against Europe throughout his parliamentary life. He should not bring that into this debate.

Mr. Shore: Whatever my personal and private views — indeed, my public views — are about Europe, the argument in this case is whether the contentions that have been put forward and the fears expressed should be subjected to an independent and impartial inquiry instead of being shoved down the throat of the British Parliament in the way that they have been so far.
Public inquiries are essential to democratic decision-making. That has been accepted by successive Governments since 1945. Public inquiry procedures, which were thought essential for terminal 4 at Heathrow, for Stansted last year, for the PWR reactor at Sizewell, and for hundreds of lesser projects, have been jettisoned for the one project which towers above all others in national

significance. Instead of a public inquiry in which national and other interests could be fully tested and instead of a debate on a special development order in which the House could, with full information, give its considered vote, we have had a peremptory exercise of prerogative power—the treaty signed with the Government of France at Canterbury on 12 February. Now the Government are bent upon steamrolling the Bill through the House of Commons.
The motion before us, if passed, will dispense with the standing orders relating to private business, and the Second Reading will proceed on Thursday of this week. The motion goes on to say:
That in the event of the Bill being read a second time, the earliest date which, in any motion for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee, may be specified as the date by which a Petition against the Bill must be presented in order to stand referred to the Committee shall be 17th June.
That is the earliest date. But surely that is misleading, for we have on the Order Paper a further motion in the name of the Secretary of State for Transport, which states:
that there shall stand referred to the Select Committee any petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 17th June.
So 17 June turns out to be both the earliest and the latest date, which is a most remarkable piece of contradictory draftsmanship for two separate motions from two different Ministers.
But the important point is that 17 June lies just 14 days ahead. Just how rapidly the Government hope to push through the consideration of the Bill became plain in the discussion that took place before the Standing Orders Committee on 20 May on the note of the Government agent's timetable. The Government expect the Select Committee to take no more than six weeks to complete its report—before the end of July. They then expect to get it through Standing Committee in the overspill period, by the end of October. It will then of course go through a similar procedure in the House of Lords and, according to the Government agent, receive the Royal Assent in around April 1987.
In our view—and it was the view strongly argued before the Standing Orders Committee—this timetable is disgracefully short. While it is true that the Bill was published in April and Standing Orders relating to newspaper advertisements and notices to owners of land and the deposit of documents were adhered to, we believe that there should be at least six weeks for petitions to be prepared. That is why, next Thursday, we are proposing the amendment that the date should be 17 July and not 17 June.
But more important than that is the whole procedure for hearing petitions by the Select Committee in the case of a hybrid Bill. Under normal procedures—normal, that is, since 14 February 1949—Erskine May says that
unless the House has given any instruction or indication to the contrary, the Second Reading considered to remove from the promoters the onus of proving the expediency of the Bill".
I stress the words:
unless the House has given any instruction or indication to the contrary".
That is precisely why we have today tabled an amendment to the motion of the Secretary of State for Transport on Thursday, in the following words:
and that in the proceedings before the Select Committee the obligations upon the promoters of the Bill of presentation and proof shall conform to the procedures followed in Private Bills".


In short, the onus of proof would, if our amendment was accepted, fall upon the promoters of the Bill and not on the petitioners against it.
Clearly that is a procedural option that the House could, and should insist upon. In support of that quote from the evidence given to the Standing Orders Committee by Mr. Durkin, the agent for the petitioners. It is important to stress, as he did, that he was speaking not only for Dover Harbour Board, and Sealink but also for European Ferries, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Union of Seamen and the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. As Mr. Durkin said:
this is a most exceptional, if not unique Hybrid Bill, as the Secretary of State for Transport put it on the 9th December 1985 and is reported in Hansard Column 642: 'the project is most unusual both in its scale and in that it will be financed wholly in the private sector'.
Sir this Bill is really more private than public. If it is enacted and put into effect, it will permit one set of private persons, including foreign bankers, to enrich themselves considerably at the expense of other private persons — such as the ferry operators and their employees and those who work at several ports such as Dover and Folkestone.
He concluded:
in my submission the Bill should be treated, as nearly as possible, as a private Bill and those whose interests would be adversely affected by it should be given as ample an opportunity to object to it as they would in the case of a private Bill.
As the House knows, in the case of a private Bill, even when a Second Reading has been secured, the onus of proof remains upon the promotors to persuade the Select Committee that the proposals are in the public interest, and that damage would not be unnecessarily inflicted upon other private interests involved.
The amendment that we have proposed for Thursday would ensure at least a far more searching examination of the proposals for a fixed link than would otherwise be possible. But this is only a second best—a compromise. It would be far better if the House refused to give the Channel Tunnel Bill exemption from the requirements of standing orders. It could be introduced again properly in November. The intervening period could be used for further studies, debate and negotiations in relation to the most important project of this century. I therefore recommend the House to reject the motion before it tonight.

Mr. Leon Brittan: In considering a matter of this kind, there are two dangers. On the one hand there is the danger of being bogged down in procedural niceties, or being lured into them, and on the other hand there is the danger of allowing one's prejudices or very strong views about the central nature of the project or the fundamental existence of the parliamentary procedure to affect one's view of what we are debating tonight.
The essential point that we ought to be debating is whether it is fair to dispense with the normal protection provided by Standing Orders in a matter of this kind. More broadly still, does the procedure as a whole that would flow from what we are being invited to do tonight enable those with anxieties about the problem, or who are opposed to it and wish to put their case, to put that case properly and have their case considered properly?
Generally, the case for proceeding in this matter by way of a hybrid Bill is persuasive and reasonable. I do not think that it is fair to castigate it as steamrolling the project through. It is wrong to say that the Government are not enabling the matter to be considered fairly by proceeding in this way. A procedure of this kind should and can provide ample opportunities for objections to be considered, and as full and ample opportunities as any other means of proceeding. That is so — it is an important and crucial proviso—where there is adequate time for objectors to prepare and put their case. Even the most enthusiastic supporters of the project must concede that many people are passionately opposed to the project, either as a whole or particular aspects of it, on environmental grounds and because of what they believe it will do to certain parts of Kent. Those who take that view must have the proper time to prepare their opposition and present it.
Many of those people live in Folkestone. Nobody has watched over their interests more keenly and been more concerned that Parliament should have a proper opportunity to hear what they have to say than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). His position within the Government may have prevented him from speaking about these matters on the Floor of the House. As one who has been a member of the Government until comparatively recently, I can assure the House and my hon. and learned Friend's constituents that it has positively assisted him to make sure that what his constituents think and feel about the matter can be properly considered in Government and in Parliament. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend has been extremely active in the constituency. On this coming Saturday he will be holding an all-day surgery at which he will advise his constituents who wish to put forward objections in a petition on how to do so.
Naturally, I have discussed this matter with my hon. and learned Friend on a number of occasions, and as a result I have come to the conclusion that, although generally the procedure that the Government have worked out is fair, it does not, as at present envisaged, give quite enough time for the individual petitioner to put in his petition. That is why with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) I have tabled the amendment that we shall be debating more fully on Thursday. I make no apology for referring to it tonight, because the principle in it is central to what we are considering today, which is whether it is fair to proceed as the Government are commending.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) has asked me to show his support for the amendment, as he unfortunately cannot be here today because he is on parliamentary business overseas, and others of my hon. Friends have also shown their support for the approach reflected in the amendment. It adds only a short period to the time for petitions, but I happen to believe, and the support given to me by a number of my hon. Friends who are personally concerned with this matter leads me to take the view that it is a reasonable belief, that that extra time is crucial for the individual petitioner.
There is no doubt that the corporate petitioners—the big boys—have had ample time to consider their case and will be able to put their petitions in the period envisaged by the Government. However, it is not


unreasonable to ask for the ordinary petitioner—the individual—that extra time represented by the change from 17 June to 27 June.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, when he winds up the debate, and although the substance of the matter will be debated on Thursday, will be able to show the Government's attitude to my amendment. I know that a number of hon. Members considering today's debate will watch with anxiety for any sign that my hon. Friend feels able to make. If he is able to smile on the amendment and show that the Government will consider it sympathetically, I know that the attitude of many of my hon. Friends towards the procedure that my hon. Friend is proposing will be materially and favourably affected.
I feel that the Government are proceeding in a way that gives an opportunity in principle for the objectors to put their case forward to be considered. However, the time envisaged is not sufficient, and I hope that it will be possible for the Government to agree that the suggested small amount of extra time will not prejudice the decision that they are seeking to make. If they do, that will be seen to be a reasonable concession to those who are asking for the right to come to Parliament to put their point of view as forcefully, as clearly and as effectively as they can.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), speaking on behalf of the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) and others made a speech that smacked of contrivance. I do not say that critically, but it must be manifest to all those who looked at the Order Paper that between now and Thursday there are three options.
The first is the option suggested by the Leader of the House—that is the starting point of the negotiation—that the end of the period for receiving petitions should be a mere 12 working days from now, on 17 June.
There is the option outlined in the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, which suggests that the appropriate date is 29 July, 54 days, or nearly eight weeks, from the date of Second Reading, if it is granted by this House on Thursday. There was not much time to table this amendment as the Government's motion went down in the last hours before Parliament rose for the late spring recess.
The third option, advocated by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks, suggests that the date should be shifted backwards from 17 June to 27 June. That would provide a period of 22 days from Second Reading, if it is granted on Thursday.
The issues of principle go beyond the issue of specific dates. It is right that we should separate our views about the substantive issue—to be debated on Thursday—and today's debate on the procedure. The Government attitude to consultation is demonstrated by the fact that they are willing to provide for debate on today's motion and, in the expectation that it is approved, two days later set down the motion that the Second Reading be debated. That suggests a somewhat sceptical view about the right of the House to reject the Government's motion today. I recall the Leader of the House's reply to me in business questions just before the House rose when he said that should the House defeat the motion tonight the Government would think again about the timetable for the Second Reading.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must be under no illusions. If the procedural motion is defeated tonight, the Second Reading will be discharged and cannot be considered again this Session.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right. I was implying that the Government were generous enough to make that concession only and no more. We would prefer a reasonable intervening period to separate this debate from the Second Reading. The Government accepted that the House has a right, if minded so to do, to reject the Government's motion tonight.
This issue is important procedurally because of the enormity of the substantive issue before the House. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was correct when he said that we are debating what is, in all probability, the biggest civil engineering project ever seen in Europe. The introduction of the Bill in April suggests that the Government are proceeding very hastily. To the people of Kent and many others, that smacks of the steamroller approach. It completely disregards the right of individuals to put their case. The Government rejected the call for a public inquiry. Therefore, the timetable should accommodate the fact that there is to be no public inquiry and to allow the maximum opportunity for those concerned, in accordance with precedents, to make their case.
It is most important that the timetable should allow sufficient time. Our views are clear, and our two amendments dealt with two matters—the timetable and the procedure. Our duty is great. The House is aware that the Standing Orders Committee made no recommendations to the House and was tied in its vote as to what should happen—whether the House should disregard the rules. The rules and precedent are clear. The precedent is cited in the special report of the Committee at page X. paragraph 9, which refers back to the Channel Bill introduced in the 1973–74 Session.
That Bill was read a Second time on 5 December 1973 and petitions against the Bill were ordered to be deposited by 15 January 1974. That was a period of almost six weeks, and the Select Committee which considered the Bill first met on 14 May 1974, which gave the petitioners more than five months in which to deposit their petitions.
If the Government are minded to make concessions, as they were invited so to do by the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, we suggest that the appropriate period should be in accordance with precedent, and that from Second Reading people should have about eight weeks in which to exercise their rights to present petitions and for them to be considered. If the Government made that concession, and 29 July was the final date, it would provide a perfectly adequate period for consultation and negotiation in accordance with the normal rules and precedence in the House, and it would allow the Bill to be proceeded with—transferring it between one Session and another under the normal rules—debated in this House and the other place during next Session, and be completed in time for the matter to go on to the statute book without risk to the project, but with the great additional advantage that the people of Kent and those who have proper environmental and other anxieties would have had an opportunity to put their case.
This is a unique hybrid Bill, and it is all the more important that a proper timetable be allowed so that people can make their views clear.
The second matter that should concern hon. Members is the way in which the Bill proceeds from now on and the way in which people are allowed to assess the arguments. So far it has been accepted that the Government will present their case, but they have refused to accept that there should be any cross-examination on that case at the beginning. It is practically difficult to allow people to know how best to question, argue against and deal with the Government's view when that view has not been tested and the potential weaknesses in some of their arguments have not been discovered.
It would accord with normal private Bill procedure to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the Government at the beginning, so that not only can their case be heard, but it can be tested before the petitioners have the opportunity to give their evidence. That is especially important because, despite the fact that the Bill was read the First time in April and the newspaper advertisements were placed, there has been considerable delay in providing some information.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport will know that letters have been written by anxious people and organisations to his Department and to the Department of the Environment complaining, for example, that maps were ready for the first time only on 16 May and making it clear that the impact study on Kent will not be ready until a date as yet unspecified. In the 1970s, at least a similar document and the proper environmental assessments were available before the Committee stage on that Bill was due to proceed. Other essential background information is so far unavailable.
The Committee chaired by the Minister of State and including representatives of Kent county council and the district councils of Kent, which meets in private and excludes the press and the public, has been unable to establish its exact role and what effects the consultation process will have, if any, on the result, so people in Kent and beyond are being expected to work in a vacuum because of the speed with which the Government are proceeding with the Bill.
My colleagues and I hope that the Minister will not simply fall for the blandishments of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond and advocate the compromise solution of principle on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends. We hope that he will accept that the precedents should be followed and that the full period of eight weeks should elapse as suggested by my right hon. Friends and myself. At the end of that period there should follow the appropriate period for consultation and negotiation.

Mr. Crouch: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the period for consultation. Has he considered the exact number of days that can be given to the consideration of the private aspects of the Bill by the Select Committee? Is he aware that the Bill can be dealt with not just on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursday mornings and afternoons, but on Monday mornings and afternoons as well?

Mr. Hughes: I am aware that the scope for those considering the Bill, the nine people if the recommendation is accepted, is open ended and that they will have substantial opportunities on many days of the week and,

as I understand it, if necessary, thoughout the recess—although there will practical difficulties about that—to take evidence and deal with the Bill.
The most important issue which I hope that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) will accept, is that, because this is the most substantial Bill of its type, the balance that the House is striving to achieve between the public interest and the fairness to those with a private interest must be achieved. The best test and argument for that would be to follow the precedents and establish a period between now and the rising of the House for the summer recess to allow the matter to be completed in the next Session, as many hon. Members would wish.
I hope that the Government will realise that it is their haste and refusal to accept the anxieties of those who have valid and considerable concerns to present by way of petition to the Committee which is causing difficulty and disrespect. The Government could accommodate people's interests and proceed in accordance with precedent and thus chart a right course for the Bill. We hope that, rather than proceeding without taking into account the concerns that have been properly expressed, they will follow precedent and will accept our advice and permit the proper and maximum period of eight weeks from this week before they proceed to the Committee stage of this nationally important legislation.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am opposed to this motion, as it seeks to short change the people of Kent and to deny them the fair play that they have been struggling to achieve ever since the Government launched on this rash and rushed adventure with the Channel tunnel.
The obscure argument tonight about the Standing Orders cloaks a real flesh and blood gut issue, and that is the need for simple justice. I argued the case for the people of Kent before the Standing Orders Committee last month, and I shall argue it again tonight. At that time the case was derided by the enthusiasts of the Channel tunnel as some form of time-wasting device. I hope that those who said that will reconsider and withdraw their remarks.
Obviously the case has serious merit. If it did not, the Standing Orders Committee would not have been deadlocked in a tied vote. In passing, I should like to pay tribute to the Standing Orders Committee for its scrupulous fairness and courtesy in giving me the opportunity to come before it. Incidentally, I make no criticism of the Chairman of Ways and Means for his decision not to use his casting vote. In the circumstances, that was probably the correct thing to do. As a result of that deadlock, the issue now returns to the House and leaves me the task of repeating my plea for justice, which I believe would best be upheld by a strict application of the Standing Orders of the House.
I shall not argue the issues of the Bill—there will be plenty of time for that on Thursday—but before I zero in on the technicalities of the argument about our Standing Orders I want to spend a few seconds on the human fears and anxieties which lie behind such issues as the petitioning dates and the violation of Standing Orders Nos. 4 to 59.
It is now well known that the Channel tunnel is the biggest civil engineering project ever seen in Europe, approximately the equivalent of building three or four London airports in a small and overcrowded corner of east Kent. Only a vague impression can be gained of the


enormity of this project from the cold print of 118 pages of the Bill, but the sweeping powers of compulsory purchase. the closure of some 50 footpaths and bridleways and the changing of some 70 roads, the destruction of woodlands and damage to sites of special scientific interest and the massive building programme of £3 billion worth of new railways, motorways, trunk roads, marshalling yards, terminals and tunnels can be seen there. Those schemes look grandiose enough on paper, but they take on the horrific form of a monster to the inhabitants of the small coastal towns and villages where they will hurt most.
Those communities will also be hurt by the permanent job losses that they will suffer. Estimates of the net loss of permanent jobs range from the Government's perhaps optimistic White Paper forecast of 3,000 permanent jobs lost in Dover and Folkestone alone, while at the pessimistic end of the scale the London stockbrokers Phillips and Drew report that some 30,000 to 40,000 jobs will be lost in what they call a bloodbath in the ferry towns; not just the Channel ports, but as far away as Hull, Immingham, Harwich, Felixstowe, Portsmouth and Plymouth.
Whatever the accuracy of those various forecasts, the one thing that is certain is that although there may be financial gains in the project for the big business promoters, many humble individuals and businesses stand to lose from it. There will be loss of jobs, property, business, environment, peace and quiet and quality of life. All the people who will be losers have rights. It is those rights and the fair protection of them by Parliament through our established procedures that are at the heart of the argument tonight about Standing Orders.
Why do so many people fear that their rights are being trampled on? Unfortunately, the Government have now consistently given the impression that they are in some sort of headlong rush to accelerate the Bill through Parliament on a wholly unrealistic and unfair timetable. That impression. despite many warnings, must have been reinforced by this week's parliamentary agenda. We have this late night motion now, followed by a breathtakingly presumptuous assumption of the House's decision this evening, because already the Second Reading debate has been tabled on Thursday, and then we have another late night sitting on the committal motion immediately after that. The Government are certainly in a hurry.
Also in a hurry are the promoters—the consortium. The other day I heard some remarks by the Channel Tunnel Group chairman, Lord Pennock, who, in the "World at One" on 8 May, said:
I have 32 banks around the world seeking to lend us £3·5 billion, and if Parliament goes on mucking around like this waiting and waiting it will be a year before the Bill receives the Royal Assent next March. I certainly wouldn't put money into it if I was a Japanese banker or an American banker or a banker in Brussels when I feel that all this mucking about is going on.
That attitude says something. It says that the rights of the ordinary citizen are in danger of being crushed by an unholy alliance between greedy foreign business men and impatient Government business managers.
That brings us back to Standing Orders, which, after all, are here fundamentally to preserve rights and which, among other things, set down a timetable to preserve rights; for example, a timetable of dates on which newspaper advertisements must be published in order to give proper notice of people's rights and ability to be able to petition.
To illustrate my point of what has gone wrong, let me ask hon. Members to imagine themselves in the position of a man who lives in my constituency, say in a village such as some of those around Canterbury——

Mr. Crouch: They are nowhere near my hon. Friend's constituency. He should stick to his constituency.

Mr. Aitken: I fear that the disease of irascibility has been passed on from Lord Pennock to my hon Friend. There are villages such as Wingham and Preston in my constituency which are on the edge of Canterbury, and the point that I seek to make if my hon. Friend will contain himself is simply this: imagine somebody living in one of those villages who wishes to petition against the Bill. He fears that his job connected with the ferries in Dover or Ramsgate could be in jeopardy and wishes to petition for certain safeguards to preserve his livelihood. The first date on which an advertisement appeared in his local paper, the "Canterbury Times"——

Mr. Crouch: It is the Kentish Gazette.

Mr. Aitken: It was referred to in the Minister's reply to a question. The advertisement placed in the local Canterbury paper——

Mr. Crouch: It is the Kentish Gazette, which dates back to 1768.

Mr. Aitken: Just about as long ago as people started to argue about this tunnel.
The date on which the advertisement appeared was 28 April. If Standing Orders had been observed, the advertisement would have been placed in December. April 28 is a significant date, because that is the date on which the Examiners ruled that Standing Orders had been violated. That is the date on which I first wrote to the Chairman of Ways and Means complaining that unfair practices had been going on at breakneck speed which denied some of my constituents their rights. On the following day I sought and received a ruling from Mr. Speaker which confirmed that the Standing Orders of the House had been broken. I drew attention then to the Government's own draft timetable, which had been published for local authorities. That timetable said that 2 June was the closing date for petitions, that the Select Committee would begin its hearings on 17 June and would finish them on 24 July.
I ask the House to imagine the feelings of an ordinary person in one of those villages around Canterbury. The first day on which he learns in his local paper how to petition, he simultaneously learns that it will all be over by 25 July and that the House will have dealt with the whole matter. The publication of that timetable caused consternation and confusion in Kent. People were asking questions like: will the Government give us a fair hearing? Will we get adequate time for petitioning? Will the Government stand by the spirit and the letter of their assurances on petitions?
We need to look closely at the assurances given by the Government to the House. The assurances date back to the report of the Select Committee on Transport on the fixed link in, I think, November of last year. The Select Committee concluded that because of its scope and size the only realistic precedent among hybrid Bills for the present Bill was the Channel Tunnel Bill of 1973–74, and it urged the Government to follow the generous ground rules


established under the hybrid Bill procedure by Mr. Anthony Crosland, the then Secretary of State for the Environment.
I should like to quote from paragraph 27 of the Select Committee's report. It says:
At the beginning of the proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Bill 1974 Counsel for the Secretary of State for the Environment stated that the Secretary of State was 'most anxious that the Petitioners should have all reasonable opportunity to put forward the points which concern them, providing that such points can properly be taken in proceedings of this nature. That being so, the Secretary of State has decided … to take no formal objection to the locus of any of the Petitioners.' The Committee recommends that this precedent be followed, that the fullest possible latitude again be allowed to petitioners and that all those whose petitions conform to the basic requirement of relevancy be allowed to be heard.
The former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), evidently studied both the Select Committee's report and the previous Channel Tunnel Bill example carefully, because he promised that he, too, would uphold the rights of those affected by his Bill by following the precedent of the previous Channel Tunnel Bill. My right hon. Friend said in the House on 9 December 1985:
The Select Committee recommended that we should follow the precedent of the 1974 Channel Tunnel Bill. We shall."—[Official Report, 9 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 645.]
He then went on in a column of Hansard to amplify the point that it would be as fair and as generous as possible.
Any citizen reading the words set out in Hansard, and reading them again in the White Paper, where they are amplified still further, would draw three conclusions. First, he would conclude that the Government would lean over backwards to make sure that objectors and petitioners were given all the time and opportunity that a reasonable person would need to prepare and present his case; secondly, that no objection would be made against any bona fide reasonable petition on grounds of locus standi; and thirdly, that the Government would stick scrupulously to the precedents laid down by the previous Channel Tunnel Bill.
What, exactly, were those precedents? First, the previous Bill started its passage through the House at the very beginning of the 1973–74 Session, being introduced on 20 November 1973. All the preliminary matters, such as the arrangements with the tunnel building consortium, the treaty with France and parliamentary approval of the White Paper, had been dealt with in the 1972–73 Session of Parliament after extensive debates in both Houses. An HMSO report on the tunnel's economic and social impact on Kent, known as the Kent impact study, had also been published in April 1973–a document of great assistance to petitioners.
Secondly, the previous Bill kept meticulously to Standing Orders in terms of registration dates, the placing of advertisements, and so on. It was never out of time, nor did it in any way violate standing orders. Thirdly, the previous Bill allowed the public and the people of Kent six weeks of petitioning time between the date of Second Reading, 5 December, and the last date for petitions, 15 January.
The House should note the contrast between the six weeks' petitioning period set as a precedent by the previous Channel Tunnel Bill and the 12-day petitioning

period offered by this Bill. In plain language, the previous Bill gave the public and petitioners fair play and a fair hearing. No one from Kent, as far as one can tell from the available records, complained that he was inadequately informed about his rights or that the petitioning period was unfairly short. Today, those general complaints are widespread.
In addition, there are four specific complaints which I think should be brought to the attention of the House tonight, not least because they are good examples of rights which the refusal of a dispensation from Standing Orders could protect.
The Council for the Protection of Rural England, which is concerned, as are many local ramblers associations, about the disappearance of footpaths under the provisions of the Bill, has argued, not only that the petitioning time is too short, but that the text of the Bill is meaningless without accompanying maps. It says that in order to petition against the Bill it must have prints of those maps. It made this point to the Department of Transport many weeks ago, and the Department agreed to supply such maps to petitioners. However, those maps were supplied only on 14 or 15 May, and the Council for the Protection of Rural England asks for adequate time to prepare and submit petitions relevant to those footpath maps, bearing in mind that its starting date for work on those petitions is 14 May.
Secondly, the Thanet district council complains that it cannot petition effectively against the Bill until the Kent impact study has been completed. The need for an impact study has been accepted by the Government, through the findings of the Mitchell committee, headed by the Minister of State. At the time of the previous Channel Tunnel Bill the Kent impact study was published as an HMSO report on 24 April 1973, 10 months before the closing date for petitions, but this time the Government have said that the Kent impact study cannot be ready, even as an initial or interim report, in time for the Select Committee's hearings. The Thanet district council says— and so do others, in my view justifiably—that this is unfair and that it breaks the precedent set by the 1974 Channel Tunnel Bill.
Thirdly, an organisation called ACTS — Against Channel Tunnel Schemes, a group of residents from all parts of east Kent, claiming 20,000 members — complains that it cannot petition effectively because the Mitchell committee and the Channel Tunnel Group keep changing the road routes and other matters from what has been set down in the Bill. To illustrate this point, I quote from the East Kent Mercury of 15 May:
Mr. Mitchell agreed that the tunnel project details were changing and that it was not yet known exactly what it would involve. 'You can't complain when changes are made to the plan so that improvements can be made' he said. The road pattern at the Folkestone terminal site could be revised so the road out of the site is nearer to Folkestone. 'We don't know what the final plans will be but this could take the pressure off Newington.'
What ACTS, the residents' group, says is that it cannot petition effectively against the road pattern of the Folkestone terminal and other routes if the Mitchell committee announces that those road routes are being changed from what is said in the Bill, but does not give chapter and verse of those changes.
Lastly, many individual petitioners from all over Kent and, for all I know, in other parts of the country, say that they have had difficulty in finding out how to petition. People are not familiar with this procedure. They say that


they have been confused— I understand that—by the publicity given to this dispute about Standing Orders and that they still have no clear idea whether the Bill is on, or off, or what the delays will be. These people need more than 12 days in which to get in their petitions. The limiting of petitions from a starting date of 5 June until an ending date of 17 June is an obvious piece of short changing and sharp practice, because it is designed to keep individual petitions down to the bare minimum.
Whether it is these detailed and specific complaints that I have been going on about, or whether it is a more generalised grievance about a headlong rush, my submission is that in order to give petitioners the fair play that Parliament should insist upon, the Channel Tunnel Bill of 1986 must follow exactly the same precedents as the Channel Tunnel Bill of 1973–74. That, after all, is no more and no less than what the former Secretary of State for Transport promised in his speech to the House on 9 December.
The only way to guarantee that those precedents are followed is for the House to refuse to grant the dispensation which the Government are requesting. The effect of that refusal would be to delay the private element in this hybrid Bill for about four months. There would be great benefit for the public and for the reputation of Parliament in such delay.
I have heard only one argument in favour of granting the dispensation — apart from the argument of expediency—which is that the Government could not have avoided breaking Standing Orders because they could not register or advertise the Bill until after signing the treaty with France and reaching agreement with the Channel Tunnel Group. My answer is that that problem could easily have been avoided. It is a problem of the Government's own making.
The Government should never have contemplated their present wholly unrealistic timetable, which has involved announcing the Channel fixed link go-ahead, seeking bidders, evaluating those bids in less than 35 working days, deciding the winner, publishing a White Paper, obtaining parliamentary approval for that White Paper nine days later, signing the treaty with France, introducing a Bill, getting a Second Reading for that Bill, inviting petitions, setting up a Select Committee, and then—if we are to believe the Government's published timetable in draft—completing the Select Committee's hearings, all in less than 12 months could never have been done, and it should not have been attempted. The Government could have followed the precendents of the previous Bill and achieved all the preliminaries in one Session of Parliament and begun the hybrid Bill in the next Session. That should have happened, and that will happen if the House refuses the dispensation.
At the end of the day, the argument about Standing Orders comes down to whether the House thinks the Government have been fair and have honoured the letter, or even the spirit, of their promises to follow the precedents. I am cynical enough to see it as almost inevitable that the unholy alliance of business men and business managers to which I referred should seek to juggle dates to accelerate the Bill for reasons of mercenary expediency or the convenience of the Whips' Office.
There is here a deeper issue of principle on which Parliament as a whole should take a view. Why expose Parliament to the charge of foul play when, for the sake of, say, 28 days of extra petitioning time nobody in Kent

or anywhere else could resonably claim that anything untoward or unfair had been done? The petitioners are simply asking, "Please, may we have a little more time? After all, you promised that when you said you would stick to the previous Channel Tunnel Bill precedents. The Standing Orders require it, so please give the individual petitioners more time."
If the Government's majority is used to steamroller the petitioners and defeat their plea for justice, two consequences will flow. First, the petitioners and the people of Kent will be made more angry. About 500 people in the Thanet towns represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, Ncrth (Mr. Gale) and I are now preparing their petitions. They are in an angry mood, and justifiably so. House of Commons Select Committee hearings will become more difficult if angry people complain about being short changed on petitioning or preparation time.
Secondly, if the rush continues, then, as frequently happens when individual rights are unfairly denied, the House of Lords will be invited to play its traditional role as a constitutional umpire. The Lords Select Committee proceedings will be more protracted so that the justice denied to Commons petitioners is given to those petitioners by the Lords, with a fairer petitioning and hearing process.
What the Government think they will gain on the Commons swings by a little sharp practice with the timetable will be lost on the Lords roundabouts as a result of fairer constitutional procedures being adopted in another place. I urge the Government to show some sense and sensitivity. I hope that when replying to the debate the Minister will at least bow to the sensible compromise proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). If not, I urge the House to reject the motion.

Mr. Stuart Holland: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has referred to the precedents for public inquiries on projects of major national importance such as the Heathrow terminal 4 and Stansted in the field of transport, or Sizewell in nuclear power. I submit that the case for a longer petitioning period and, indeed, the case for public inquiries concerning various aspects of the Bill is important to how we vote in relation to the issue before the Standing Orders Committee.
For example—and we shall be addressing ourselves to such issues on Second Reading, and I appreciate that that will be the pertinent point at which to raise substantive matters—part III, schedule 1, the Bill has a couple of pages and several paragraphs concerning the impact of this project on the environs of Waterloo station and the railway in that area, since the Government have opted for Waterloo as the single terminus for traffic in the London area. The House should seriously consider precisely what has happened in that local area in relation to other public inquiries where this Government, not simply previous Conservative Governments, have allowed public inquiries to take place. For example, in the immediate vicinity of Waterloo, a major struggle was fought by local groups which are having difficulties in knowing how to petition on this Bill and was won by Them over property companies which wanted to develop major office complexes in the area.
It would have been open to a Secretary of State to seek to steam-roller—whether it was the Heron company or Greycoats Commercial Estates — the issue of giving approval and disallowing further public inquiries into this matter. In fact, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), allowed yet a further public inquiry. The inspector was able to take evidence on a scale concerning the impact on the local environment that simply will not be possible under the petitioning process considered in the timetable for this Bill.
Even allowing for the integrity and the physical stamina of Members, no Standing Committee or Select Committee, whether it worked all night, all day or all week for all the time allotted it, could allow as effective an examination of each main item in the Bill as could public inquiries on the individual items of the Bill. Take, for example, the case that I have just cited of office development versus community housing. Finally, the inspector, having taken evidence at a length and in detail comparable to all the evidence that the Standing or Select Committee is likely to be able to take in relation to all aspects of this Bill, recommended to the Secretary of State that planning permission should be granted either for office development or for community housing. By this time, the arguments put in the public inquiry had registered, improbable though it may seem, on the property companies themselves.
I make a direct analogy with the reference that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has made in relation to banks and financial interests asking themselves whether it is commercially viable for them to invest in a project such as the Channel tunnel. Despite the dismissal of the case by the property companies at the time of the argument that technical progress and automation in the office was reducing the relative demand for office space, dispersal of offices outside London meant that many companies were moving their headquarters and that there would not be a sufficient market for office development in the Waterloo area. By the time that the public inquiry had gone through, the final property company, Greycoats Commercial Estates, decided that the case argued by the community—equivalent in this case to petitioners—was valid, and decided to withdraw its application for the site, despite the fact that the Secretary of State had given planning permission for it to go ahead.
That shows that our democracy is not simply a parliamentary democracy in Parliament. We should be proud of our democracy as a plural democracy reflecting local government and increasingly, through the planning inquiry procedures to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney referred, allowing people in local communities to feel that their voices and their arguments can be heard. The public inquiry process is not simply a ritual of individuals giving evidence to people who will dismiss it. The public inquiry system has an excellent track record.

Mr. Keith Speed: The hon. Gentleman has said that the public inquiry system has an excellent track record. Would he comment on the failure of the public inquiry system in trying to solve the problems of the M3 and the Winchester bypass which have been going on now for 13 years?

Mr. Holland: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a difference between having an excellent track record in hearing the case that people put and seriously considering it, and suiting the aspirations of every individual applicant or group of applicants in each and every case. The point that I am making is that the range of issues raised in the Bill is so wide that the petitioning process cannot adequately meet them. With reference to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I say that not as an opponent of co-operation with Europe because I am an advocate of such co-operation, nor as an opponent of the Channel fixed link, because I support such a rail link.
In opting for Waterloo as a single terminus — I appreciate that this is mainly a Second Reading issue—and then justifying ex post the case, the Government are steamrollering not only the local community but also fundamentally the viability of the project.
One of the issues that we shall want to address in the Second Reading debate is the dispersal of traffic rather than its going to just one terminus in London, so that if one cannot get on a train in Barcelona and go through to Blackpool, at least when one gets on a train in Brussels or in Paris, one can go to all parts north of London.
The petitioning process is not long enough in relation to the parliamentary questions which hon. Members have put in the House and to which they have not obtained adequate answers, and often no answers at all. For example, concerning the impact on the area of Waterloo as the sole terminus, I put down more than 30 parliamentary questions to the former Secretary of State for Transport. In the majority of his answers he simply referred me to British Rail. He refused to answer the points on the Floor of the House.
I have now referred myself to British Rail, and two so-called consultation meetings have taken place with British Rail this week and last week. I and others in the local community have been putting similar questions. What has happened is interesting. The Minister could not answer the questions and British Rail cannot answer them either. For example, a Mr. Malcolm Southgate, whom I in no way wish to malign because he is doing the best possible job granted that he has no answers to give to most of the questions, and who is the Southern region manager responsible for the Channel fixed link traffic in the whole of the south-east, said earlier this evening at a so-called public consultation that he does not believe that the relative pros and cons of the project and its impact have yet been weighed up as they will affect Waterloo.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. It is difficult to relate the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the procedural motion. They would be more appropriate to the Second Reading of the Bill on Thursday.

Mr. Holland: I submit that they are directly relevant, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the very persons who were with me at the consultation are those who wish to petition on the Bill. I take directly the point made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South that they do not know as yet on what proposals they are petitioning in the first place.
Just as the hon. Member for Thanet, South has said that road systems in Kent are being changed during the process of the Bill so that protesters do not know whether they should be mobilising their protests against route A versus route B, similarly in the case of Waterloo and its so-called


consultation process we are getting changing answers from week to week from British Rail management, to whom the Minister referred me as the Member representing that area.
This relates substantively to petitioning, because where does responsibility lie? The project is changing. For example, last week, in the consultation process, we were told nothing about planned dispersal of traffic. This week we are told that the planned dispersal of traffic is to be great. One of my constituents said tonight that he does not know whether he should be petitioning against the use of Waterloo as the exclusive terminal or outlet for traffic. In one evening British Rail has simply declared that it will disperse a lot of traffic. It anticipates dispersing about I million passengers via Ashford and several million passengers to all parts north via other routes. It is not clear to my constituent, as a potential petitioner, how much traffic will pass through Waterloo in the first place. My constituents are in difficulty in addressing the issues because the Bill is a moving target. They have no faith in the current procedural process.
The Minister will not answer my questions but refers me to British Rail. On behalf of my constituents I put the issues to British Rail. Again the ill-fated Mr. Southgate from British Rail said tonight that he is sure that the House of Commons will ensure that all the relevant facts will be brought out fully, with a very full and thorough examination of the points made by those who want to raise them—in other words, petitioners.
Where does the responsibility lie? Can the House really be satisfied that the kind of issues which individuals or groups wish to raise — in fact it would be groups because individuals are likely to be ruled out of the petitioning process—will be adequately heard, far less met, by the petitioning procedure? If hon. Members are honest with themselves, they will be frank and say that the petitioning procedure is inadequate.
On Second Reading various amendments to the Bill will be tabled by my right hon. Friends and myself. However, petitioning is not a serious process of providing due remedy for grievances in the sense of enabling groups or individuals to put their case, and I hope that the House will consider that when it votes tonight.

Mr. Roger Gale: I should like to comment on two of the arguments presented tonight. The first, to which I shall return, is that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), which has been consistent throughout the discussion. The second is the charade presented by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). Having been so well represented by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the electorate of Folkestone will not be taken in by the Liberal party's Johnny-come-lately attempt to jump on the bandwagon any more than the electorates of Dover or Thanet are likely to be beguiled by the machinations of a party, the Euro manifesto of which wedded itself firmly to the Channel tunnel project. That is the case unless the so-called alliance would now like to say that it is opposed to the Channel tunnel project in its entirety, as some Conservative Members are. I hope that that point will be taken by the House and by those who are genuinely and seriously affected in north-east and east Kent.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of time to make his point and I should like to pursue my argument.

Mr. Hughes: There has never been any doubt that my colleagues have always been in favour of a Channel fixed link—a rail-only fixed link and a proper consultation process about how that should be achieved.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful for that clarification and I trust that the alliance's commitment to the Channel tunnel project will appear prominently in the Folkestone press. As there are no names from the other half of the so-called alliance to the amendments I assume that they are, as usual, reserving their position firmly on the fence.
Many of my constituents are passionately concerned about the effects of the project will have on their lives and livelihood. I live in a north-east Kent village and I can confirm that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South accurately and admirably represented the views of the people living there. Those people and many of my constituents will wish to make their extremely strong views forcefully known through the procedures that this House is expected to afford them. They look to the House to protect their rights. Many of them have already been further angered unnecessarily by what they regard as gerrymandering of the proceedings and in the knowledge that a road network which they have sought to have improved for many years has been neglected while billions are to be spent elsewhere. Opposition Members refer to road systems being changed daily, and that is true. Unhappily, the one road system in north-east Kent that needs to be changed to a dual carriageway is being entirely neglected to such an extent that Kent county council approved a single carriageway footbridge over it.
I do not intend to rehearse the arguments that we shall raise at great length on Thursday night, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South have tabled for Thursday night an amendment seeking to give the people of north-east Kent a proper opportunity to use procedures in which they are in no way well versed, which will take them time and for which they must be granted time.
It has already been said that the time granted appears to be not 12 days but one day because the earliest date on which petitions may be deposited is also the latest date, given that the motion before the House states that the earliest date on which motions may be deposited is 17 June and the motion to be tabled on Thursday indicates that that is the last day on which motions may be deposited. Whether or not that is the case, it is clear that my constituents and those of my hon. Friend must have proper time in which to prepare and lodge their cases.
As this is a private Bill we look to the Leader of the House to protect not only the interests of the Back Benches but of ordinary petitioners. do not believe that Thursday is sufficiently early for that commitment to be given. It must be given to the House tonight.

Mr. David Crouch: I have been accused by my dear colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) of being irascible. The whole question of linking Britain to Europe is so profound and has been considered for so many years that one can get a


little irascible when hon. Members, members of the public and even one's constituents, dig in their feet against Britain linking itself to Europe and trying to go forward to another century. That is what makes me irascible.
I do not want to trespass on the speech which I shall make not at some length, but at great length, on Thursday night. However, I am concerned at the impossibility of British citizens and people such as parliamentarians, politicians, Ministers and Back Benchers being able to make up their minds about anything. I am also concerned at how hon. Members can make up their minds and how, in a parliamentary democracy, people can be heard. I have listened to the speeches that have been made tonight. All hon. Members referred to the need for people to be heard and for sufficient time to be given so that they can be heard. I respect everything that hon. Members have said.
The reason for my irascibility against the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), who led for the Opposition, is that I do not believe his motivation. His motivation is anti-Europe. I respect the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened to him in the past say, passionately, that we should have nothing to do with Europe. I happen to like the right hon. Gentleman, but he is passionately against Europe. All hon. Members differ in their views from time to time, but we know that the right hon. Gentleman is passionately against Britain being linked to Europe. I believe that, because of his passion that Britain should not be linked to Europe, he is seeking to trip up the Government. That does not apply to other hon. Members. It certainly does not apply to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
I could not help feeling, as the hon. Member spoke frequently about defending the interests of the people of Kent, that quite a few hon. Members from Kent could have done just as well. In a way, he was himself tripped up by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who said that he appeared to be deserting his party a little by suggesting that he would want to trip up the Government tonight. His party is wholeheartedly in favour of the tunnel and the fixed link, and wholeheartedly supports my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) who, occasionally, must represent his constituents with a silent voice.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the debate we had on the White Paper. At one stage the Liberals argued vigorously in favour of a public inquiry and, at the same time, the leader of the Liberal party said, in Kent, that he did not believe that a public inquiry was feasible.

Mr. Crouch: In some respects, everything that is said about the Liberal party is so liberal these days that I do not think anyone can understand just where it stands on some issues. It is digging up paving stones, and is trying to make more pavement policies out of them. That was how the speech tonight by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney struck me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South was right when he spoke of Lord Pennock, who is now the chairman of Euro-Tunnel, who complained of the prospect of Parliament mucking about with the Bill by wasting time listening to complaints. He had to get on with getting the finance arranged and satisfying the engineers, the planners, the draughtsmen, and so on. He felt that if we

debated the matter we might delay all that activity and might even frustrate it by preventing him getting the money. He was entirely wrong to suggest that Parliament mucks about when it considers problems and tries to represent the interests of its Members' constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I agree absolutely on that. We are not mucking about tonight. and we shall not be mucking about when we consider the Bill in Committee as a hybrid Bill, and look at both the private and public aspects of it.
I am one of those who believe it necessary to have a fixed link, but that is not our concern tonight. Our concern is that there should be fair play, and that the voices of individuals and corporate bodies should be heard if they feel that their interests are jeopardised by this major project. After all, it is agreed that it is the greatest engineering project of the century. In many ways it is comparable to the great development of the railways that took place during the last century. Brunel, for example, spent 14 days in Committee arguing his case for building a railway to Bristol.
In those days the Private Bill Office was a vast series of offices, because there was so much private legislation initiating those great achievements of the 19th century. We shall now do a great thing this century, but we must also do something to protect individuals who feel disadvantaged. Many of my constituents feel that I have let them down because I am in favour of Europe. Perhaps in the short term I have let them down. After all, I will bring bulldozers to Kent to develop the road, dig the tunnel and carry away the soil. As we know from when the M25 was connected to the M4, that is not a pleasant sight. It took several years to make that connection, and it was just the connection of two motorways. The Channel tunnel is a much bigger project.
Of course people will be disadvantaged financially, environmentally, socially and even economically. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) argued persuasively and offered the Government a very reasonable compromise. As one who has supported the Government through thick and thin on this issue, and who does not have the support of his colleagues from Kent, I must say that my right hon. and learned Friend's compromise would be much fairer to those who want to be heard. Only a little more time is involved. My right hon. and learned Friend has not tried to trip up the Government tonight. In a way, who could blame him if he had tried. However, he has been very reasonable and fair, and has asked for just a little more time.
Back Benchers have a duty not just to their constituents but to Parliament and to the public. We should ask the Government to take into account the history not only of great engineering projects but of Parliament in defence of people's rights. They should listen to us when we say that we want more time, and that they are rushing the Bill a bit. Even if they do not think that they are rushing it, the people of Kent think that they are. Consequently, they must provide a little more time. If they do so, they may win the hearts or even the minds of those in Kent who are so strongly opposed to the idea. I do not believe that the Government would then jeopardise their intention to go ahead with the project.

Mr. Keith Speed: I agreed with just about everything that my hon. Friend the Member for


Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) said. This issue goes to the heart of the sensitivities of people in Kent, around Waterloo, and in other parts of the country. Whatever our views may be about the link—and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has never disguised his wholehearted opposition to it—we are determined that individuals, and, say, small parish councils, who fear that their property or livelihood may be affected, should be all important at this sensitive stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South made a powerful speech, part of which I agreed with and part of which I did not. He prayed in aid the procedures that we went through about 13 years ago on the previous Channel Tunnel Bill. Modesty forbids me from saying that I was the Minister at that time and introduced the Bill on Second Reading. However, I must remind my hon. Friend that his analogy with the present Government is not fair.
A key part of that scheme, which would have gone down like a lead balloon if it had been included in these proposals, was the high-speed rail link. It was not part of that Bill. The issue was not even addressed on Second Reading, as I remember very well because I moved the Second Reading. I do not consider that we are comparing like with like.
Having said that, I should declare an interest as a director of the Folkestone water company, which would be affected by the link. The company is likely to be petitioning on the Bill. That brings me to the heart of my brief remarks. I do not think I am revealing any secrets by saying that a board meeting last week prepared the company to petition and to instruct parliamentary counsel. The company will be going ahead, as a successful small to medium-sized company can do.
Frankly, I am not too bothered about the Sealinks, the Dover Harbour boards, the Folkestone water companies and corporations of that kind. I am very concerned about individuals, not all of whom are from Thanet, with the greatest respect. They are in Folkestone, Ashford and Canterbury, Sevenoaks and other parts of Kent, and in London too, around Waterloo station, and no doubt in other parts as well. I am concerned about the people for whom even the thought of these legal terms and the question of petitioning is not clear.
I had a telephone call from a constituent only a few days ago and he and I were at cross purposes because he was thinking in terms of the petition that is presented to Parliament in the normal way. I had to explain to him that we were not talking about that. These are complicated matters. This underlines the importance of being not just generous but over-generous in the time that we give individuals for petitioning when the Bill receives its Second Reading on Thursday, as no doubt it will.
Certainly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) gave an excellent and clear exposition of the real and personal issues that face us in this debate. His amendment, which I understand will be called two days hence, goes to the heart of the matter. The amendment stands in his name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. I have added my name today.
I would go a little bit further than 27 June. It would be a sign of the Government's sensitivity and good intentions if the Minister could assure the House tonight that they would certainly go at least as far as that date, and that their approach to petitioners, especially parish councils, individuals and those whom I call the small people, in the

best sense of that word, would be, so far as it is in their power—clearly some of the power will rest with the Select Committees—sensitive and generous in relation to time, powers or information. We owe our constituents no less than that. I think that the Government would emerge with considerable credit if they were to approach the matter in that light.

Mr. Roger Moate: I endorse and welcome all that has been said about giving petitioners more time, but my objection to the motion before us tonight is much more fundamental than that. "Erskine May" tells us, under the heading of "Petitions for Bills deposited after time" at page 937 that
petitions should accordingly be confined to matters of urgency".
I understand that a Channel tunnel project was debated first in about 1750 and that projects of one sort and another have been attempted for at least a century.
I cannot understand why suddenly, in June 1986, this has become such a matter of urgency that the House should be asked to set aside Standing Orders, unless there are perhaps matters of which we are not aware—chat the finances are so precarious and the political situation so delicate that it is vital that we introduce the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that a treaty was signed between the French and the British—that is the urgency.

Mr. Moate: I shall come to those matters soon. However, in terms of the procedures of the House, setting aside Standing Orders is a step that no one would take lightly—I am sure that the House will not—or without due consideration.
Some feel passionately in favour of the Channel tunnel project. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) put it much more as a matter of ideology than as a matter of transport communications. I respect his position, but I hope that he and every other proponent of this measure will recognise that all those people who are directly affected by the measure, particularly those in Kent who face the harsh reality of the construction works, as opposed to those elsewhere in the United Kingdom who see this as a political ideal, must be afforded every opportunity to petition and to present their case. What are a few weeks or months weighed against one's home, livelihood or farm land?
I hope that we shall all be generous, whatever our view—we are all a little schizophrenic on such a project—and that we shall allow ample time for debates, inquiries and cross-examination. I also hope that, in debating procedures as we are tonight, we recognise that, whatever the merits of the proposition, in setting aside the Standing Orders, we are discussing something of fundamental importance in our constitution.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House clearly distinguished between the private and public elements of the hybrid Bill. The fact that Standing Orders lay down that private Bills should be Introduced by 27 November is not just some quirk of some bureaucrat who drew up the rules. They are there for a purpose. The privilege of introducing a private Bill should be conceded carefully by the House. The position in the queue is of great importance. We should not lightly accord any individual or private corporation privileges, especially the privileges


of private legislation, nor lightly allow them to dispense with Standing Orders and gain those privileges much later in the Session.
As regards the private element in the Bill, we are now proposing to do that. By the nature of the legislation we are conferring on private individuals and corporations the right to substantial profits, and they will make those profits — rightly of wrongly — at the expense of individuals whose lands might be compulsorily purchased. We have to consider carefully how we set aside private legislation procedures. They are there for a purpose.
One of the great privileges of private legislation is that it can overturn one of the fundamental defences of opposition, as it can in practice, be carried over to the next Session. That is at the heart of the matter here, because that is one thing that cannot be done with a public Bill. In this respect, we have here a major act of public policy. Thus, as well as being a major private Bill, it is a major public Bill, introduced by the Government. By using the hybrid procedure, the Government are doing something that the House would not normally allow them to do. A major Government Bill introduced so late in the Session would not normally have a chance of getting through in the time available.
If the House passes the resolution, which I suspect that it will, it will be saying to the Government, "We shall allow you to suspend the rule and carrying over the legislation into the next Session." That is denying the House one of the fundamental weapons of opposition. It is a virtually open-ended procedure which allows the Government to get their legislation through regardless of the weapon of time which is usually available to the House. The Government are using a private hybrid Bill to achieve their public ends. This is a fundamental issue. I am not saying that it is wrong. It has been done before, but it is a serious matter.
Why is it so important that we should set aside procedures in June because the Government wish to do it? The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) said that it is because we have signed a treaty with France. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South that the Government created that predicament. I believe that it is more important that the investigative procedure and the public inquiry procedure should be upheld than that an act of the Executive should be taken for granted by the Legislature. I do not believe that the treaty is of paramount importance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury automatically assumes that anyone who opposed joining the Common Market is against links with Europe, and I wish to put that in perspective. This is not an ideological matter but a matter concerning transport links. There are hundreds of links with Europe, maritime links and they are very efficient.

Mr. Crouch: No.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend may say no, but I think that he will find that there are efficient and substantial maritime links.
It is proposed that we should engage upon a major building project which will have a dramatic effect upon Kent and other parts of the United Kingdom. Normally there would be extensive public inquiry procedures which would allow individuals to put their cases. That inquiry

procedure has been set aside. I can fully understand why. I can well imagine the supporters of the project saying that it would not see the light of day if a long public inquiry was initiated. That does not make it right but I can understand the reasons.
The fact that we have the hybrid Bill procedure and the Select Committee procedure is not due to the generosity of the Government—they had no choice. It is not up to the Government to lay down the timetable, as they have sought to do, for the Select Committee. The House should be concerned that the Government are trying to suggest how the Select Committee should conduct its affairs. Once that Select Committee has been appointed I trust that, as worthy Members of the House, they will not be dictated to by the Government.
The idea that the matter can be dealt with in a few weeks is unacceptable. I do not know how the Chairman will be selected and it will not be an enviable task. I can recall a Committee which I chaired which dealt with a crematorium. That issue alone took 23 sittings, over a period of some months. If an issue of that nature can take that long, I suspect that more than a few weeks will be spent on the Channel tunnel.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is ludicrous.

Mr. Moate: I suspect that that view was shared by some of the members of that Committee.
Given the size of this project and the rules of the House, I hope that the Select Commitee appointed will be jealous of its rights. I hope that it makes sure that all the petitioners are given an adequate hearing. The matter should not be rushed. It will be discussed in the next Session and beyond, and frankly, the promoters of the scheme must accept that. There are many people in Kent and elsewhere who wish to petition and they must be given that right. I would prefer this motion to be withdrawn and the legislation introduced at the beginning of the next Session. Thus the legislation could be taken in a proper way. The Government are attaching an urgency to the matter that could deny many potential petitioners the right to be heard. One cannot tell whether the project will go through; the track record is not encouraging for the Bill's supporters. I suspect, judging from experience, that we shall not see a Channel tunnel in our lifetime — [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I suspect that that is so. One need only consider the precedents. They have all failed so far, and I suspect that this one will, too.
What is more important is that the Government should be seen to respect the rights of the people who are affected by the project. That should have priority, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will at least concede the point about providing more time for petitions. However, I should much prefer the motion to be defeated tonight or withdrawn.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: The hour is late and I shall not detain the House for long. The common theme addressed to Ministers in the debate so far, whether by those who prophesy doom and gloom for the project. those who wish the procedures of the House to delay the Bill for some time or those of us who support the fixed link, is, "More time, gentlemen, please." We want more time on behalf of our constituents who may not have the clout to


deal with the big battalions of Government at the pace that Ministers have, unfortunately, given the impression they wish to follow.
I support the urgency with which the Government have tackled the development of the fixed link, and I said that in welcoming the statement made in the House on the day when the treaty was signed. Britain can no longer go through the extraordinarily tortuous and long-drawn-out proceedings of public inquiries on such international projects, but we must consult those who will be most directly affected by the building of the fixed link, and possibly affected negatively by it, for all the positive benefits that it will bring to the nation. People in Kent will be adversely affected in many cases, although there will be benefits, too. Their position can be safeguarded by ensuring that full time and opportunity are given, especially to the small man, to gather together his forces, to get hold of the difficult process of handling parliamentary procedure and to bring those petitions to Parliament, which, as many hon. Members have said, is the guardian of people's right to be heard.
My support for the Channel tunnel fixed link will continue to depend on my being assured by Ministers—I hope that the assurance will be repeated tonight—that adequate time will be given. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the Channel Tunnel Bill, who has already become closely involved with councillors in Kent, will assure us that he will be responsive to the pleas made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Some of the speeches tonight have added to the confusion that has already been spread by many newspapers about the complexity of the procedures through which our petitioners must go. With many hon. Members, I have made some inquiries, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I believe that it is important to remember the following points.
The first is that no Hybrid Bill Committee has ever been instructed by the Government or by any one else as to when to complete its consideration. It would be improper for that to be attempted. Secondly, it is for the Committee to determine whom to hear, when to hear them and where to hear them. I understand that the Committee will choose, for example, whether it will be for its convenience and that of its petitioners to go to Kent to meet groups of petitioners. The third matter about which it is most important to reassure my constituents and others is that the Committee can allow petitioners to state the heads under which they will present the petition, but will give them time to address the details under those heads. That will set at rest some of the anxieties that have been engendered by the information that the Government from time to time change the routes of roads. It appears to be enough for the petitioners to say that they intend to raise the matter of a route, and if that route is changed between the entry of the petition and the hearing of the petition, it will be for the Committee to decide whether to allow them to address themselves to that route.
All these points make it clear that the Government cannot and should not have control over the timetable. I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I join many of my hon. Friends tonight in stating that in presentation and in practice it is unnecessarily clumsy to

have shortened to this extent the time in which petitions may be entertained when we have a procedure stretching ahead of us the end of which we cannot foresee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will tonight give the reassurance that many of us have sought.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: We are not discussing the priciples of the Bill. That will come later in the week. We are now discussing whether the procedures of the House shall be so determined as to enable the petitioners to have sufficient time to petition against the Bill.
I support the construction of the fixed Channel link. However, I am not too sure that sufficient time is being given to ordinary people to petition against the Bill. Sealink and others will have briefed their counsel and they will have sufficient resources. They will know precisely what they ought to do to petition against the Bill to protect their vested interests. I am not too sure that the ordinary people, whose houses and environment will be vitally affected by the Bill are able sufficiently to understand the procedures under which they should advance their interests. I believe that a strong case has been fully presented by the hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies. The petitioners should have more time than is envisaged by the Government.
As I understand it, the time for petitioning will be very restricted indeed. That is unfair and unjust. As I argued in the Standing Orders Committee only a couple of weeks ago, there should be an extended period in which the petitioners can argue against the principles of the Brill, which they think affects their vital interests.
It might be too late to argue this, but I would ask the Minister tonight to say, as the Members representing Kent have been arguing, that petitioners must have an extended period in which to petition against the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Like almost every hon. Member who has spoken tonight, it is not my intention to delay the House for long. We have had from almost hon. Member who has spoken tonight, except, I think, the first three, the promise that speeches on Thursday night after 10 o'clock will be somewhat longer. That is a taste of what is to come. I am not sure whether they were threats or the casting of a fly delicately in the water in the hope that the Minister would take it and concede some of the amendments to the committal motion.
The argument has to some extent hinged round whether the date for petitions to be submitted is sufficient to allow people to put their petitions and to be ready for them, and so on. However, I want to address myself to one or two other points. First, "Erskine May" is clear that if this procedural motion is not carried tonight, under the Standing Orders the hybrid Bill is automatically discharged and cannot be resubmitted in this Session. It would then have to be resubmitted with or without changes at the beginning of the next Session. That is the case unless the Government are so determined to push the Bill through quickly that they interfere with those basic Standing Orders. Parliament, having a will of its own, is perfectly entitled to set aside the Standing Orders if it so desires. I do not think that the Government would go to such extraordinary lengths, but that is a possibility.
If the Government had taken our advice in December last year and had a public inquiry, the genuine, passionate and articulately expressed concerns of those hon. Members from Kent, who have mainly spoken tonight from the Conservative Benches, would have been met in full. There would have been plenty of time for everyone to put their case, without unnecessarily protracting matters, to make sure that people had a clear idea of where they were going. The wishes and desires of hon. Members from Kent would have been properly accommodated had a public inquiry been granted.
The Government are suffering from what I call the 140 syndrome. They genuinely believe that because they have a majority of 140 they do not have to think through their policy or its consequences or take any account of the procedures of the House of Commons. It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has gone on to other things. I was going to use the word "decamped", but having been transferred by the Prime Minister is perhaps not decamping. However, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the difficulty in which we now find ourselves. If he was not negligent, he must have known right from the beginning that the Standing Orders could not be complied with. We have had two full debates on this matter. As the report of the Standing Orders Committee makes clear, Mr. Gamon for the promoters pointed out that on several occasions in the debate on the White Paper the Secretary of State stated his intention to bring forward a hybrid Bill early in the year. I sat through the whole of these two debates and read the White Paper carefully, and at no time did the then Secretary of State ever say, "Of course, in order for this procedure to be carried out, we, the Government, draw attention to the fact that we cannot meet standing orders and will have to ask the Standing Orders Committee to give this concession." It would have been far better for that to be done in an open way rather than leaving it to the examiners to certify that the Bill was out of time and then to send the matter to the Standing Orders Committee.
There was some surprise and even irritation that the Standing Orders Committee was finding it difficult to come to a decision. The Committee was put in an extremely invidious position. I agree with the Leader of the House that this is almost a unique Bill. It is certainly a Bill of great importance and will have a much wider impact on the public and on our economy than probably any other private or perhaps even public Bill introduced this century. The Government are taking a momentous decision and they ought to play the game properly in terms of the time scale and the standing orders.
It is not just the dates on which some mechanical processes have to take place according to standing orders that are important. The amount of time people have to understand what is proposed for their areas is also important. A number of hon. Members from Kent and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxall (Mr. Holland) made the point about how difficult it is to get information, even now after the hybrid Bill has been published. The matter is about a period of discussion, consultation and of knowing what is before us. I remind the House that it was only on 20 January this year that the successful promoter was named. We seem to have forgotten it was a competition among promoters. We have known only since January exactly what scheme was chosen. I shall not repeat

at any length the doubts expressed in the debate that the assessment of each of the bids was carried out in an extremely short time. Everyone concerned has had this timetable compressed and I do not know why such a timetable has been brought forward for the commencement of the work.
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke about the tetchiness of Lord Pennock. I do not propose to go into that or to go into the principle of the matter. We should remember that we are speaking not of a project that is expected to return its capital cost in a short time, but about one that is expected to draw its revenue, its capital return and its profit over the period of 50 years. I find it inconceivable that a period of six months can really affect the viability of a project involving some 32 banks worldwide. That argument does not stand up.
The Government have got themselves into this mess and, whether they like it or not, they are being portrayed as riding roughshod over people's opinions and driving an important matter through at short notice. How did the Government get themselves in this mess? We can all speculate on that question, but I simply wonder whether the Prime Minister in her discussions with President Mitterrand got carried away or was seduced by his Gallic charm, and that is why we got this timetable of completion within 12 months. The Government have made a virtue out of this being private venture capital. I shall return to that later because to some extent this debate is paling into the committal motion, and I do not want to expose all the shots in my locker. I am sure no other hon. Members wants to do that either.
The Government ought to have given a reasonable period for discussions. There was no need for them to suspend standing orders. They could quite properly have allowed decent planning and consultation and could have brought in the Bill next November. There would have been widespread if not total approval at that later stage for trying to set fairly tight mechanical deadlines. I hope the House will not approve this motion.

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in opening this debate, set out, with his customary clarity, the parliamentary practice on the application to hybrid Bills of Standing Orders on private business. The precedents of this House on the matter are clear enough. No hybrid Bill has been refused dispensation on the ground of being late, while many have been granted dispensation in these circumstances. But the key question before the House tonight is whether the introduction of this Bill late in the Session has put petitioners at any significant disadvantage.
I ask the House to compare the normal pattern for a Bill announced in November with the Channel Tunnel Bill on this occasion. If we take the normal pattern, as in Standing Orders, promoters file for their petition by 27 November. That means that they have then announced what they are about. They deposit the Bill by 4 December, which is one week later. Promoters notify the affected parties directly in newspaper advertisements by 11 December. That is one week later. Petitioners must present their petitions by 30 January, which is eight weeks after 4 December.
In this case we announced the Bill on 20 January. We published the White Paper on 4 February and in it we stated the intention to legislate this spring. We deposited


the Bill on 18 April, just over 12 weeks later, and the promoters, our parliamentary agents, notified the affected parties within days—all complete under a week—with newspaper advertisements by 27 April.
If we compare the situation under the normal procedure — from an announcement to the close of a petition period, nine weeks, and from the notification of advertisements a period of eight weeks—in this case there were 21 weeks from the announcement to the time of petitions closing, and 8½ weeks instead of eight weeks for the period after the advertisements had been placed. Therefore, I believe that the House, looking at it dispassionately, will see that no petitioner has been disadvantaged by the proposed proceedings, and the big petitioners certainly have had ample time, since they knew from the end of last year that they should start to get ready with their major petitions.
A number of hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), referred to the 1973–74 precedent. They are correct in saying that the House decided on that occasion that the closing date for petitions should be six weeks from Second Reading. That allowed petitioners eight weeks from the date of introduction of the Bill in which to lodge their petitions — rather less time than the minimum period specified in the motion that has been debated tonight.
The fact that the Select Committee did not meet until May on that occasion was due to an intervening general election. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South would not want that to be taken into account on this occasion.
Companies that have petitioned against dispensations of course would prefer there to he delay. If possible, they would like the delay to be irreparable. But it will not be lost on the House that the two companies that have petitioned for delay in this case are commercial competitors of any fixed link. But what about the others? What about the landowners in the area who would like the uncertainty to he cleared up? What about the unemployed who would like the orders to go to engineering industries — indeed, to Thanet? Some of the large number of unemployed people in that area would like these jobs to go to that area.
I shall write to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) about the earliest and latest dates, but I am able to reassure him that the position is not as he believes it to be. As for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South about maps, detailed plans showing all relevant features, including, for example, footpath closures, were available for public inspection at the offices of the county council, the district councils and certain parish councils on 18 April, one day after the introduction of the Bill. I hope that that is thought to be reasonable.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey wants the Government to state their case to the Select Committee before the hearings begin. We shall be stating our case in the Second Reading debate on Thursday. That will be the occasion for the major presentation of the case, and it will be the major opportunity for the highest tribunal in the land to consider the principle of the Bill. In addition, a statement will be made at the commencement of the Select Committee's proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South complained about difficulties for petitions. It must be almost unique for a Government to produce a leaflet telling people how to make their voices heard and how to mount a campaign against the Government's proposals. Those leaflets have been circulated widely throughout the relevant parts of Kent.
Some of my hon. Friends complained about changes in the layout of the terminal. If, having heard the views of local people, the promoters and the Government did nothing, there would of course, he complaints. Having made the changes that have been sought, there can hardly be complaints on that score.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) spoke of little people and several others, including my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), expressed interest in the amendment down for Thursday's business in the names of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. That has been attributed to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—and I have never known a Member to be more effective in representing his constituents without actually speaking in the Chamber. I cannot anticipate Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments for Thursday, but I have sympathy with my hon. Friends' views and I see the merit of their approach. I hope that, with that assurance, the House will approve the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 87.

Division No. 202]
[1 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Arnold, Tom
Butterfill, John


Ashby, David
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cash, William


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chope, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Churchill, W. S.


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Conway, Derek


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon


Benyon, William
Cope, John


Best, Keith
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Crouch, David


Blackburn, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Dover, Den


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dunn, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Durant, Tony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brinton, Tim
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Eggar, Tim


Brooke, Hon Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Evennett, David


Browne, John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bruinvels, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Favell, Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Fletcher, Alexander


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet






Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David John


Franks, Cecil
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Freeman, Roger
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Major, John


Galley, Roy
Malins, Humfrey


Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)
Malone, Gerald


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marlow, Antony


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mellor, David


Grist, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moynihan, Hon C.


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Newton, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, J.
Norris, Steven


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayward, Robert
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Pawsey, James


Heddle, John
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Henderson, Barry
Pollock, Alexander


Hickmet, Richard
Porter, Barry


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powley, John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howard, Michael
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'fieid)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Richard


Knowles, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knox, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lamont, Norman
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lester, Jim
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Speed, Keith


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Spencer, Derek


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin





Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watson, John


Sumberg, David
Watts, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wheeler, John


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Whitfield, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Whitney, Raymond


Thornton, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Michael


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Waddington, David
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Carol Mather.


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Walden, George





NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Home Robertson, John


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hoyle, Douglas


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bidwell, Sydney
Leadbitter, Ted


Blair, Anthony
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Boyes, Roland
Litherland, Robert


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell, Ian
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Thomas
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clay, Robert
Maxton, John


Clelland, David Gordon
Michie, William


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Neilist, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
O'Brien, William


Conlan, Bernard
Patchett, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Pendry, Tom


Corbett, Robin
Pike, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prescott, John


Crowther, Stan
Raynsford, Nick


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Deakins, Eric
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dormand, Jack
Snape, Peter


Dubs, Alfred
Soley, Clive


Eadie, Alex
Spearing, Nigel


Eastham, Ken
Strang, Gavin


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Ewing, Harry
Wallace, James


Fatchett, Derek
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Faulds, Andrew
Wareing, Robert


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Welsh, Michael


Fisher, Mark
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Forrester, John
Winnick, David


Foster, Derek
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foulkes, George
Young, David (Bolton SE)


George, Bruce



Godman, Dr Norman
Tellers for the Noes:


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That in the case of the Channel Tunnel Bill the Standing Orders relating to Private Business, so far so not complied with


in the respect mentioned in the Report of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills relating to that Bill [28th April], be dispensed with and the Bill be permitted to proceed;
That in the event of the Bill being read a second time, the earliest date which, in any motion for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee, may be specified as the date by which a Petition against the Bill must be presented in order to stand referred to the Committee shall be 17th June.

Mr. Keith Mulcahy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Roy Galley: The treatment of my constituent, Mr. Keith Mulcahy, in Her Majesty's prison, Frankland, gives cause for concern on a number of issues. It is a long saga, and I shall seek to be concise.
In December 1983 Mr. Mulcahy was sentenced to fivei years imprisonment for offences of burglary and handling stolen goods. After periods in prisons in Leeds and Liverpool, he was transferred to Hull prison. There, in April 1984, he asked to be segregated for his own protection under rule 43 since he had been threatened by other inmates who were aware that he had given certain information about criminal activities to the police.
As Mr. Mulcahy was not prepared to return to normal location arrangements at Hull, he was transferred to Frankland prison in May. Again he applied for rule 43 protection, since he was allegedly intimidated by other inmates who had heard that he had passed information to the police. He was again segregated. At this stage he caused some difficulties for the prison authorities because he wished for the added protection afforded by rule 43 but did not wish to associate with sex offenders and violent criminals who were held under that rule. He also found that the constraints of rule 43 confinement were irksome. In effect, he sought to be placed on normal location, while retaining the protection of rule 43. Of course, it was impossible to provide such arrangements for inmates with the limited accommodation and facilities available to the prison. Therefore, it can be seen that Keith Mulcahy was not an easy prisoner to manage. There were apparently other incidences where he had been unco-operative, and no doubt prison staff regarded him as a nuisance.
On 21 January 1985 Mr. Mulcahy was taken to the hospital wing of Frankland prison, complaining of chest pain. On 22 January he sought to return to normal location, but the prison doctor insisted that he remain in hospital for observation, which Mulcahy did against his wishes. Precisely what occurred as the period of observation was coming to its end on 23 January is somewhat lost in the mists of confusion. Prison officers claim that while in the hospital wing Keith Mulcahy was threatening to smash up his cell. Mr. Mulcahy denies that. There appears to have been some dispute about access to his record player. What certainly did occur was that a decision was taken to move him into a stripped cell. He went willingly to that cell, and there an incident occurred. Mulcahy claims that he was attacked by an officer. The officer and his colleague maintain that Mulcahy attacked one of them and had to be restrained. That was the subject of a board of visitors' inquiry later in the year. Keith Mulcahy was found guilty and punished with loss of remission.
Although I remain suspicious about those events, I do not wish to dwell upon them and must accept the hoard of visitors' conclusion on this aspect of the case. I am primarily concerned with what happened after the violence. Without giving his consent, Keith Mulcahy was forcibly injected with the drug paraldehyde, which is a strong sedative, and injections of the drug are considered to be painful. The maximum recommended dosage set out in the British National Formulary is 5 to 10 ml, no more than 5 ml at any one site. Keith Mulcahy was given 20 ml.


He claims that he was injected in two different places, but according to the doctor there was one injection of 20 ml. It is also claimed that later on 23 January another injection, perhaps of another drug, was administered.
The role of the prison doctor is subject to disputed evidence, but there do appear to be some irregularities. Mulcahy was not examined immediately prior to the injection. The doctor's adjudication of fitness for punishment appears, at best, to have been haphazard. In evidence to the board of visitors the prison doctor admitted that he had given instructions while Mulcahy was in the hospital wing that he could be removed to a stripped cell if he became angry or truculent. It appears that hospital officers were given a relatively free hand by the doctor. It was stated that there was no need to refer to the doctor before a decision was made to remove him to a stripped cell.
The doctor claims that he visited Mulcahy in the stripped cell at 14.30 on 23 January, at about the time the injection was given. The prison officers all stated that the doctor was not present, and at the board of visitors' inquiry the doctor accused the hospital officers of telling lies.
There are a number of central questions in this case. Keith Mulcahy claims that he did not give his consent to the injection and, manifestly, he would not have done so. The usual ethical rules that are applicable in the prison medical service are that treatment without consent is not given unless a person is a danger to himself or others. There has never been any suggestion that excessive violence emanating from Keith Mulcahy occurred on 23 January, and there are no well-founded grounds for giving an injection without consent in this case. The prison doctor said at the board of visitors' inquiry that administering a drug such as paraldehyde without consent would be "tantamount to assault." Why, then, was the injection administered without consent?
The second question is whether the rules relating to the adjudication of fitness for punishment were adhered to. It cannot be acceptable for a prison doctor to give carte blanche approval to removal to a stripped cell without carrying out a prior examination immediate to that removal, purely on the ground that the prisoner could become angry or truculent.
Why is it that paraldehyde was administered when its use has been voluntarily restricted by doctors in the National Health Service in recent years and it has not been used in institutions such as Broadmoor for almost 20 years? Why was the dosage administered in one place at least four times the recommended maximum dosage? Under what circumstances are behaviour controlling drugs administered?
During its current inquiry into the prison medical service the Social Services Select Committee has consistently been told that such drugs are rarely, if ever, used for behaviour controlling purposes. These are the essential points of concern, but there are other issues. However, this evening I shall not seek to enter into too much detail on them.
Keith Mulcahy was bruised after the incident on 23 January. Why was no full investigation of that bruising carried out, but only a cursory observation by the prison doctor? On his subsequent transfer to Durham prison on 24 January. why was there no medical examination, as is normally the case on the reception of a new prisoner? In

July 1985, while in Durham prison, Keith Mulcahy undertook a hunger strike. On the fourth day of it he was again transferred to a stripped cell.
If half of what he tells me about the conditions in which he was held in that stripped cell are true, those circumstances are appalling. Prisoners are rightly deprived of their liberty, and one would not wish them to live in a holiday camp atmosphere, but there is no need to treat them as brute beasts. In November 1985 I received a petition signed by more than 70 prisoners at Frankland complaining about the treatment of prisoners at the prison and suggesting that there had been at least one other incidence of forcible injection of drugs.
All that seems to merit the fullest, most thorough, independent inquiry into the case of Keith Mulcahy and the circumstances at Frankland. There is still a great deal of conflicting evidence and many points of dispute. I hope that I have been careful to make no direct allegations unless there is substantial evidence. However, I complain unreservedly about the delay by the Home Office in this case. After corresponding over the months on several points of detail, I wrote to my noble Friend Lord Glenarthur on 31 July 1985 asking for a full inquiry. Repeated requests over the next few months for information about progress produced little result. Eventually, on 19 February, my noble Friend wrote to say that a formal investigation was in hand and that by that time all concerned had been interviewed and a report was being drawn up. That was three and a half months ago.
I hope that my hon. Friend can understand my impatience in the matter. It is more than 10 months since I first asked for an inquiry'. It is more than three months since the inquiry was substantially completed. One would not wish, in such cases, to sacrifice thoroughness for speed—one understands the pressures and problems of the Prison Department — but there has to come a point when, if there is no action, tolerance turns to suspicion. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer completely the points that I have raised.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): There can be no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) has raised a serious matter in relation to his constituent and to the petitions which he has already placed before the House. He raised the matter in the form of the allegations about actions of the staff of Frankland prison. I assure my hon. Friend, on behalf of my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, that he and the Department understand the extreme gravity of the matters disclosed regarding the prisoner Mr. Mulcahy.
It is right for me to go into the background detail of the affairs of 21 and 22 January regarding Mr. Mulcahy, who has been in Frankland prison since May 1984. On the evening of 21 January 1985, Mr. Mulcahy was admitted to the prison hospital, complaining of pains in his chest. When he saw the medical officer, Dr. Bhattacharya, on the morning of 22 January, Mr. Mulcahy asked whether he could return to ordinary location, but Dr. Bhattacharya felt that he should remain in the hospital under observation for a further 24 hours as the cause of his chest pain was still unclear. Mr. Mulcahy was unhappy at being kept in the hospital and threatened to cause trouble. Dr. Bhattacharya therefore made a note that, if Mr. Mulcahy caused trouble,


he should be placed in a stripped cell, which is a room in the hospital adapted to remove or modify features capable of being used by a patient to harm himself.
On 23 January, at around 12.30 pm, Mr. Mulcahy rang the bell in his cell and asked the hospital officer who attended for a record player. When this was refused, Mr. Mulcahy became abusive and demanded to see the governor. Staff agreed to arrange this in the normal way when the governor took applications the next morning. But at about 2.15 pm, Mr. Mulcahy again rang his bell and demanded to see the governor at once. He said that he was not prepared to wait until the morning and threatened to smash up his cell.
Staff therefore moved Mr. Mulcahy to a stripped room in accordance with the medical officer's instructions. Once in the stripped room, Mr. Mulcahy was asked to remove his clothes in accordance with the normal practice. At that point, he suddenly attacked one of the hospital officers, punching him in the face, and had to be restrained by the other officers present.
Mr. Mulcahy was later charged with a disciplinary offence, as my hon. Friend has related as a result of that assault. I shall return to that aspect of the case in a minute. While Mr. Mulcahy was being restrained, a hospital officer went to see Dr. Bhattacharya and explained the situation to him. He authorised the injection of 20 millilitres of paraldehyde, a tranquilliser. Mr. Mulcahy was held down by staff while this injection was administered in the buttocks. This was at about 2.30 pm. Mr. Mulcahy was then placed on special watch; that is, staff were required to observe him at intervals of not more than 15 minutes. He was observed to quieten down during the afternoon and evening. He was seen by the chief officer at 6.30 pm and by a member of the board of visitors at 6.45 pm. Dr. Bhattacharya saw him again at 7.30 pm and noted that he had some slight abrasions and bumps, consistent with the account given of the incident by staff.
At about 9.20 pm, Mr. Mulcahy began banging on his cell door and shouting. He told the hospital officer who came to see him that he had vomited blood and that he wanted to see a doctor. The hospital officer telephoned the duty doctor—a part-time medical officer with a practice outside the prison—at his home. The part-time medical officer authorised an injection of 100 milligrammes of pheno-thiazine, which is also a tranquilliser, and said that he would come into the prison if his condition worsened. When the hospital officer attempted to administer the injection, Mr. Mulcahy tried to knock the syringe from his hand, and had to be restrained by three other officers who had been summoned to assist him. After the injection was given, the 15-minute watch was maintained and Mr. Mulcahy calmed down.
This bare description of events obviously raises a series of questions. Indeed, my hon. Friend rightly highlighted them in his speech. I want to deal with them in order and explain what action we have taken. But my hon. Friend will recognise that some of the action that we have taken has sought to answer the questions that he posed. I refer, of course, to the inquiry, whose conclusions he is patiently awaiting.
I will deal first with the violent incident in the stripped cell immediately before the first injection was given. As I have said, Mr. Mulcahy was charged with a disciplinary offence. The governor remitted the charge to the board of visitors. Mr. Mulcahy requested, and was granted, representation at the hearing, which took place on 25 June.

Mr. Mulcahy's defence was that he had been the victim of a concerted and unprovoked attack by staff; and he denied that he had assaulted the hospital officer first. The other four officers present during the incident gave evidence. All made statements confirming that Mr. Mulcahy had attacked the officer first and that no more force than necessary was used to subdue him. There was a very lengthy hearing and all the relevant evidence was considered by the board, which found Mr. Mulcahy guilty as charged and awarded him 60 days' forfeiture of remission.
The first of Mr. Mulcahy's petitions about this incident was received on 12 July. He complained both that he had been the victim of an unprovoked attack by the officers in the stripped cell and that he had been improperly medicated without his consent. In the following weeks we received letters about the case from my hon. Friend and from the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) and also Lord Avebury. Mr. Mulcahy's solicitors also wrote about the case, asking for a copy of the transcript of the adjudication which we sent them on 25 September. Meanwhile, we had called for reports from the governor and medical officer on the issues raised by Mr. Mulcahy and the hon. Members concerned, including my hon. Friend.
During the course of these inquiries, we reached the conclusion that the adjudication on Mr. Mulcahy had been properly carried out, that Mr. Mulcahy's allegation that he had been the victim of an assault by staff was fully and correctly aired at the hearing and that all the relevant evidence had been put before the board. We therefore saw no reason to interfere with the award. However, we also reached the conclusion that, on the facts as they were known at that stage, a formal investigation into the allegation of forcible medication was required, and on 4 November the director of the prison medical service and regional director jointly ordered such an inquiry to be carried out by senior members of their staff — the regional principal medical officer and the deputy regional director. They then interviewed Mr. Mulcahy and the staff concerned at some length. My noble Friend wrote to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on 19 February to explain that this inquiry was under way, that in the meantime he could not comment on the allegations. but that he took them very seriously and would write to them as soon as possible. The report and the accompanying statements were presented to the director of the prison medical service and the regional director in April this year. Of course, he would have preferred this report to have been completed earlier, both in the interest of Mr. Mulcahy and the staff concerned. However, it is only fair to say that the report is a substantial one and that the officers carrying out the investigation had to do so in addition to their normal duties. My hon. Friend very generously referred to that.
The director of the prison medical service and the regional director are now considering what action should be taken in the light of the report. In doing so, they will have regard to the advice issued by the director of the prison medical service to all medical officers on 27 January 1984 concerning the circumstances in which medication may be given without consent. That advice recognises that there is no statutory authority for medical treatment to be given in prison without the consent of the prisoner concerned. In this respect, prison medical officers


are in the same position as doctors in the community. In the absence of any statutory guidelines, the director of the prison medical service has commended to medical officers guidelines derived from the report of the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders, which subsequently formed the basis for section 62 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which of course applies to the treatment of patients detained in hospital under that Act. These guidelines advise that treatment should be given without the prisoner's consent only where, without that treatment, the prisoner's life would be endangered or there would be a likelihood of serious harm to the prisoner or others, or there would be an irreversible deterioration in the prisoner's condition.
My hon. Friend has asked pertinent questions tonight about the medication carried out in this case. The inquiry has been set up to elicit those facts and will seek to answer those questions fully.
I know that my hon. Friend, and indeed other hon. Members who are interested in the case, will be anxious to know the decision as soon as possible. I am not in a position to announce the outcome of the inquiry tonight. I can say, however, to my hon. Friend that we expect to

reach conclusions within the next two weeks, or sooner. My noble Friend will then write fully to him and to the other hon. Members concerned. I know that my noble Friend will also be willing to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax to discuss the case fully. I imagine that my hon. Friend will wish that to happen.
However, I cannot conclude without expressing both personally and on behalf of my noble Friend, our apologies to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for the inordinate time that it has taken to resolve this most serious, but complicated, matter. I wish to place on record the admiration that I have for the great patience as well as pertinacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax in maintaining his commitment and interest in the case.
I have to tell my hon. Friend—and I know that he will understand—that the allegations are very serious, and they are being treated very seriously indeed. I must sympathise with my hon. Friend that I am not able to provide him with the answers that he seeks tonight, but I have given him the assurance that in a very short time he will be in possession of the answers to his questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o' clock.